Riders Alliance hold public assembly for their transit plan and claim it's a private event as they try to kick out a commuter activist

What happened to public space for people???

Freedom News Network has an even better angle of the bullying by Fascist Riders Alliance

Here's Fascist Riders Alliance again trying to oppress this genuine riders advocate from filming a car they were using to get to their public assembly private events. Funny with all their talk about transit equity and demands to people to give up their cars, they cruise around from town to town contributing to car culture and traffic congestion

That woman, who appears to be RA's executive director Betsy Plum's muscle and chaffeur, seems to be confused because license plates and the cars they are affixed to is actually public information.

Supreme Court rules against Cuomo

Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that New York's "special" limits on religious gatherings violated the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In other words, Cuomo can't arbitrarily choose 10 or 25 people as an attendance limit for houses of worship while 100 are shopping at Costco at the same time. And it was our local Catholic diocese, along with Agudath Israel, that got this nonsense stopped. Happy Thanksgiving ya big turkey!

De Blasio kicks meeting attendee out for exercising First Amendment right

For those who don't have facebook and are viewing this on other browsers besides Chrome. Here's the whole hearing. Where our mayor shows contempt and gives condescending responses to every other citizen who had the mike. Start it at the 25 minute mark to save time. JQ LLC

Get ready for "the sex shop next door"

From the NY Times:

On a stroll through the Times Square of today, a visitor can slurp a bowl of gumbo at Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, buy a tube of mascara at Sephora and snap a selfie with a fleet of Elmos.

But if the fever of desire is at hand, it is still possible to find, within a few blocks, all manner of erotica at businesses like the Playpen, Lace and Private Eyes. Despite over 20 years of laws and lawsuits aimed at sanitizing New York City of what are decorously called “adult establishments,” some have endured. This week, an appeals court in Manhattan ruled that they have a legal right to do so.

Such video stores, bookshops and topless dancing clubs are protected by the First Amendment as long as no more than 40 percent of their offerings contain sexual themes, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. The legal battle has dragged on for two decades and has pitted the free-speech rights of the businesses against the city’s efforts to keep them from filling up heavily trafficked areas.

“It’s all about free speech and whether you can regulate businesses and the content of those businesses based purely on someone’s animus towards the type of expression being offered there,” said Erica T. Dubno, of Fahringer & Dubno, who represented a coalition of theaters, video stores and bookstores. “But under the First Amendment, you can’t regulate speech without showing some type of harm.”

Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city’s Law Department, said the decision was being reviewed.

DeBlasio not a fan of the first amendment

From DNA Info:

An electrician. A retired ConEd worker. A recruiter. A law enforcement officer.

These are just a few of the protesters whose messages are so disruptive to Bill de Blasio that his aides have been shooing them into a so-called "free speech zone" at the mayor's public events over the past few months — despite de Blasio's past defense of First Amendment rights.

The mayor's office has come under pressure for its so-called "free speech zones," which aides defend as a way to minimize disruption at de Blasio events.

First Amendment advocates, however, see the zone as an unseemly change for the formerly protest-friendly mayor, who has defended the right for people to protest issues ranging from Occupy Wall Street to the death of Eric Garner during an NYPD arrest on Staten Island.

The rules are different now that he's on the other side of the podium, many activists said.

Are sign regulations unconstitutional?

From Capital New York:

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will allow a constitutional challenge to city zoning laws that regulate what kinds of signs can be displayed in a person's window.

The order on Friday stems from a federal suit filed by Brigitte Vosse, a fashion designer who owns a condominium in the Ansonia, an apartment building on Manhattan’s Upper West Side.

Vosse constructed an illuminated peace sign to hang from her 17th floor living room window in December 2010. In court filings, she claimed that the sign was part of her opposition to war and American military policy abroad and that the regulations violated her First Amendment rights.

In September 2011, Vosse was fined $800 and forced to remove the peace sign by the city’s Environmental Control Board, which found that it violated a zoning regulation banning signs at heights of more than 40 feet. The E.C.B. refused to rule on the constitutionality of the law.

Vosse then sued the city in federal court, arguing that the zoning policy “disparately preferred some groups of displayers to others,” since flags, banners, and pennants are allowed at the same height, according to Zoning Resolution Section 32-62.

The case against the city was dismissed in November 2013 by federal district court judge Jed Rakoff, who ruled that Vosse had no legal standing to sue. However, Rakoff did not rule on the constitutionality of the underlying zoning regulation.

Friday’s appellate court ruling upholds Rakoff’s dismissal of the case, but a three-judge panel ruled that the lower court must review whether the zoning laws are in violation of the First Amendment.

NYPD union wants Melissa to knock it off

From the Capital New York:

During a closed-door meeting with Mayor Bill de Blasio last week, the city's police union leaders asked the mayor to denounce what they perceived as anti-police actions by City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, according to Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association.

In a radio interview with Joe Piscopo on Monday, Mullins said the union presidents voiced displeasure to the mayor about Mark-Viverito donning an "I can't breathe!" T-shirt to protest a Staten Island grand jury's decision not to indict an officer in the death of Eric Garner.

Mark-Viverito and many other council members wore the shirts at a Council meeting last month, shortly after about 20 members staged a "die-in" outside City Hall to protest the decision. (Mark-Viverito did not participate in that demonstration.)

Mullins called the meeting with de Blasio a "golden opportunity" for the mayor to improve his broken relationship with police unions, but said de Blasio defended Mark-Viverito, his close political ally.

"He defended it with—they have a First Amendment right, she's not his puppet, and that she felt very strongly about a grand jury decision," Mullins said on the AM970 show "The Answer."

"What he did was he reasoned her actions. But the question was would you denounce her actions, and he didn't answer that," Mullins said.

Do ya think that perhaps it was the fact that deBlasio handpicked Viverito as Speaker and then proceeded to not veto anything she and her council minions passed that made the police union think that he'd hold some sway over her.

And there's a split in the Council with regard to how to proceed with police reform bills.

Protesters not interested in calming down

From Epoch Times:

A coalition of activists issued a scathing statement Monday, addressed to NYPD Police Commissioner William Bratton and police union leader Patrick Lynch.

The letter, signed by over a dozen grass-roots organizations, including Black Lives Matter and Brooklyn Movement Center, charges the NYPD with attempting to silence the protests of those “seeking justice for victims of police violence,” as well as “reckless attempts to conflate constitutionally protected protest activities with the tragic murders of officers Ramos and Liu.”

On Monday, de Blasio and Bratton held a press conference inside the police department’s Manhattan headquarters, asking that protesters put on hold their demonstrations against police brutality in the wake of Garner and Brown’s deaths. For weeks, they have marched through city streets and staged peaceful protests to call for reforms in how police interact with communities of color.

“Let’s just focus on the families and what they have lost. I think that’s the right way to move toward building a more unified and decent city,” said de Blasio.

“We’ve responded by meeting in our homes, offices, and school—and walking out of them, with our hands up. Thousands of others have organized small actions that when woven together have tremendous impact. The problem isn’t the diverse voices that participate in dissent, a cornerstone of our democracy,” the letter stated.

The activists asked those “who stand on the side of justice to join us.”

While there have been a number of vigils held for the police officers by protesters in the last few days, today saw the continuation of protests against police use of force. A group of youth protest leaders in New York rallied in Union Square on Monday. Another group intends to hold a press conference Tuesday announcing plans for a New Year’s Eve protest.

Boy, this guy just can't make anyone happy lately.

Queens Tribune forgets what "free speech" means

From a Queens Tribune editorial:

"These families deserve better than to have a mob of people yelling at them to leave or to find a job. They likely already feel like second-class citizens. There was no reason for protesters to take their frustrations with the Dept. of Homeless Services out on the individuals seeking shelter at the empty hotel. The actions of those protesters were abhorrent, and those families who are now housed at the Pan American deserve no less than an apology, not just from that mob, but from the local officials who allowed it to happen."

The "poor families" who screamed out that protesters should "go make chicken wings" and "go back to China" deserve an apology? (You'll notice no mention of the counter-protesters' behavior in either the editorial or the Trib's story.)

And since when do local officials "allow" people to express their right to free speech? Holy crap, I can't believe a media outlet - its very existence dependent on the first amendment - actually wrote this sh*t!

Politicians sweat the small stuff, ignore major issues

We are fortunate to live in this great America where we can express freedom of speech our (first Amendment rights).

It is unfortunate that the politicians can ignore voters' living conditions.

The outrage should be on South Jamaica's horrendous, unhealthy, oppressive conditions where mostly blacks live. For those who care about our health and well-being, here is how you all can help.

Call Mr. La Mura at (718) 286-2908. He is the liaison to Borough President, Melinda Katz.

Call Ms. Helena E. Williams at (718)558-8252. She is the president of LIRR. The trestle walls are covered with mold.

Don't forget Comrie/deputy for Katz. Comrie, former Councilman for 12 years in South Jamaica. - Pamela Hazel

This woman cannot be trusted

From the Daily News:

A group of citizens bands together and takes out an ad criticizing a candidate running for mayor. The candidate who is the subject of their criticism — City Council Speaker Christine Quinn — is stung by it. She believes it falsely characterizes her positions.

But instead of just responding, which of course she has ample resources to do, she takes steps to prohibit the critical ad from appearing. First, her campaign’s attorney threatens the cable company on whose network the ad ran, suggesting that it could lose its license if it continues to run the ad. Then Quinn writes to all the other mayoral candidates, asking them to join her in condemning and rejecting all such ads by independent citizens or groups of citizens operating outside of the city’s campaign financing system.

In other words, only the candidates themselves and established media outlets, like newspapers, can offer their opinions in elections. Citizens should not have a voice. Or if they do have a voice, it should only be muted, never amplified on the airwaves.

What Quinn is proposing is exactly what the founders of our country tried to avoid when they passed the First Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans — not just candidates and newspapers — the right of free speech.

Who does she think she is? Quinn can reject contributions to her own campaign from sources she doesn’t like. But she cannot reject what I or any other New Yorker wants to say about her. Nor can she “reject” my right to band together with others of like mind and voice our opinions. That’s what free speech is, and it’s the oldest tradition of liberty we have.

Richard Nixon infamously sought to target and punish his critics. Rudy Giuliani set a city record for being sued for violating the First Amendment. We don’t need another mayor with this little respect for our traditions of free speech, or with so little regard for the First Amendment that she would respond to criticism by trying to repress it.

CB1Queens.org back up and running

From DNA Info:

They got the last laugh.

A parody website that took jabs at members of Queens Community Board 1 is back up online after pulling its content last week, following threats from the city over use of the official seal.

The new version of CB1Queens.org contains many of the same biting remarks about the local board, but shows other changes, including a disclaimer on its homepage that it's a "parody" and "not part of Queens Community Board 1."

The city's Law Department had notified the site that it was in possible violation of copyright laws for using the city seal on the page, and for copying other elements from the actual CB1 website.
"The City of New York is the exclusive owner of all rights in the City seal and the City possesses common law trademark rights in the seal," a Law Department staffer wrote in an e-mail to the site's anonymous creator.

"You have created a website that looks substantially similar to the official Community Board 1 Queens website. The layout and design of the official CB1 Queens website, as well as its contents, are protected by federal copyright law," the e-mail reads.

My favorite page is about the members who donated to Vallone campaigns over the years.

Avella leaves Muslim parade in disgust

"On a beautiful September Sunday afternoon, not far from the scene of the infamous Islamic jihad attack in lower Manhattan, Democrat New York State Senator Tony Avella came face-to-face with Muslim hatred for America and he did something that few people have the courage to do. He got up from his seat as a VIP Marshall of the 27th annual New York Muslim Parade and stormed off the stage in disgust! Over one thousand Muslims in the audience and the large group of Muslim community leaders were shocked that the Senator would walk off the stage, even before it was his turn to speak. But, Tony Avella had enough of the blatant tirade of hate against America by "moderate" Muslim dignitaries and his love for America was more important than embarrassing a group of Muslim "wolves in sheep's clothing." Sure, the Muslim cultural jihadi's had the first amendment right to condemn America (which they could never do in their home countries) but Senator Avella had the right to exit, stage left!! Our hats are off to Senator Avella for taking a very public stand on a critically important issue."

City violated religious groups' 1st Amendment rights

From the NY Times:

A federal judge ruled on Friday that religious groups cannot be prohibited from using public schools to hold services, rejecting the argument that such use violates the Constitution’s requirement to keep church and state strictly separate.

The ruling, by Judge Loretta A. Preska of United States District Court in Manhattan, was a major setback for New York City, which has fought for nearly two decades to expel religious groups from the schools.

Religious groups that use the schools hailed the decision, even though the city is likely to appeal.

Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a group representing the churches, said, “The court’s order allows churches and other religious groups to meet for worship services in empty school buildings on weekends on the same terms as other groups.”

In her ruling, Judge Preska found that barring religious groups did not violate the free-speech clause of the First Amendment. Rather, the city’s regulations were problematic because they violated the establishment clause of that amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Before the ruling on Friday, the city required that churches wanting to use a public school list all the activities that were going to take place before they were granted a permit. If the city found that those activities crossed a line — from discussion to worship — the permit could be denied and the group expelled.

Halloran against internet censorship bill

From Bayside Patch:

Councilman Dan Halloran, R-Whitestone, is breaking rank with GOP members in the State Legislature, to blast a Republican sponsored bill banning anonymous online comments.

The bill, known as the Internet Protection Act, would require New York-based web administrators to remove comments made by anonymous posters, unless the poster agreed to attach their real names, according to the Huffington Post.

“This is an unconstitutional attempt by New York State to play Big Brother on the Internet,” Halloran told Fox News. “Will it soon be illegal to publish an anonymous novel or distribute an anonymous work of art?”

Unconstitutional internet bill proposed

From the Huffington Post:

Republicans in the state government in Albany, N.Y., are attempting to pass a law that would ban anonymous comments on the Internet (to articles such as this one, or even to websites such as the one you're reading this on now). That clever login name you came up with? Sorry, you'll have to use your real name instead.

Luckily for all of us, this is never going to happen. Even if New York Republicans had their way, and actually passed their so-called Internet Protection Act, once it arrived in a federal court it would be tossed out in a "New York minute" (as they say).

This isn't just overconfidence in the judicial branch or civil libertarian smugness, either (although the "New York minute" bit is admittedly rather snarky). Legal precedent from only a few years ago already exists, which not only puts the First Amendment stamp of approval on online anonymity, it actually says that any attempt to uncover the identity of the commenter would be unconstitutional. And the case hinged not on political comments on a website but actual email spam. Political spam is protected free speech -- so how can website comments not be?

Speaking out on politics in whatever technological medium exists -- and remaining anonymous while doing so -- is not just one of the foundational rights our government was built on, it was actually largely responsible for our nation and our government even existing.

That is not going to be taken away by any misguided modern group of politicians in Albany, New York. Whether they've read and understood the Constitution or not will not matter, even if this pathetic excuse of a law is actually passed. Because it won't last that "New York minute" in federal court, before it is tossed on the historical ash-heap of past attempts at such censorship -- and, indeed, laughed right out of the courtroom.

This actually sounds like part of Gov. Cuomo's "war on cyberbullying."

Federal court upholds NYC campaign finance law

From the NY Times:

A New York City law that limits campaign contributions from individuals and entities that have business dealings with the city survived another legal challenge on Wednesday, when a federal appeals panel ruled that the law did not violate the free-speech and equal-protection provisions of the United States Constitution.

Several plaintiffs had challenged the city’s “pay to play” regulations in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan in 2008. A district court judge upheld the constitutionality of the law in February 2009.

The plaintiffs, including former Councilman Tom Ognibene and the State Conservative Party, appealed that ruling, but their legal challenge has now been rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Unintended consequence of billboard law

QUEENS, NY (PIX11) — If you have driven on the Long Island Expressway lately, you may have noticed a lot of empty billboards.

It's not a reflection of a bad economy, says Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr., it's a reflection of a bad choice by the City.

"The City passed a law banning them from the highways to beautify our City. But they couldn't actually ban the sign. So now they are still up and covered with graffiti," complained Vallone.

Up and down major roadways in the City, drivers have noticed the empty space, now covered in ugly graffiti. "Interesting. Why don't they just put up inspiration thoughts or messages like Welcome to Queens," asked Shiela Madison, from Long Island City.

Vallone says a law passed years ago was designed to prevent clutter on highways, and is now creating a new concern. "It's just blank canvasses for graffiti. They are eyesores," said Vallone, hoping to ignite a conversation among City leaders and the community for a change.

Saying 'adios' to chica chica

From the Daily News:

They're called "Chica Chica" cards - and they're flooding Corona and Jackson Heights, Queens.

They look like baseball cards. But instead of featuring A-Rod or Derek Jeter, they have graphic pictures of naked or half-naked women - with a phone number offering free delivery.

They're really the business cards of prostitutes and pimps who operate along a stretch of Roosevelt Ave. in Queens - and a move is afoot to make them illegal.

Queens Democratic Sen. Jose Peralta wants to make it a crime to distribute the raunchy cards. He and his Assembly counterpart Francisco Moyo have introduced a bill making distribution of the cards a misdemeanor, categorizing them as obscene material.

"Is this going to eliminate prostitution? It's not," Peralta said. "It's the first step toward improving the quality of life on Roosevelt Ave."

The lawmakers say that on a nighttime walk down Roosevelt Ave., there will be men uttering the words, "chicas, chicas," which means "girls, girls" - and they'll thrust forward one of the cards.

Residents are fed up.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown calls the "Chica" cards "a vexing problem that is plaguing our communities."

But he said a law to ban them raises "difficult legal questions under the court's interpretation of the First Amendment."

Well where do I begin with this one? First of all, it's refreshing to see legislators trying to do something that actually benefits their constituents for a change instead of just being full of sound bytes and fury, but signifying nothing. Calling in the Guardian Angels - not the worst idea in the world. It won't cost us anything and they may actually help the situation since goodness knows we don't have enough cops to handle this.

Richard Brown, on the other hand, should have used the opportunity to let the distributors of this smut know that he is investigating and prosecuting them. Instead, he wimped out by hiding behind the first amendment. Sadly, most, if not all of the women working as "chica, chicas" have been abused and likely are the victims of sex trafficking. (Of course if Brown did start a crackdown on whore ads, it would put his friends at one local newspaper out of business.)

Elected officials flunk first amendment test

From the NY Times:

New York, never at a loss for self-congratulatory words, regards itself as the most tolerant of cities, a place where one may express any thought freely. It is true. In New York, one may articulate any idea whatsoever — as long as that idea parallels popular opinion.

Stray too far from generally accepted wisdom, though, and you are asking for trouble.

The latest to discover this reality is a Texas group called Life Always, which bought billboard space in SoHo to deliver an anti-abortion message rooted in recent statistics from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. They showed that in 2009, 41 percent of all pregnancies here ended in abortion. The abortion rate for black women was even higher, almost 60 percent.

Up went the billboard on a building at the corner of Avenue of the Americas and Watts Street. It showed a black girl with these words above her head: “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.”

Was this anti-abortion statement subtle? Hardly. Accurate? Depends on your politics. Offensive? For some people, yes. Out of step with mainstream thought in New York? For sure. And so, a few days ago in this most tolerant of cities, a raft of elected officials wasted no time calling for the billboard’s removal.

Lickety-split, the sign came down...

Some who objected to the sign complained that it was provocative. Of course it was. Since when is the American concept of free speech confined to opinions that are nice and safe and unlikely to cause a ripple?

Some also saw the message as racist. Clearly, it was racial. But racial and racist are not one and the same...

This plain act of censorship was not isolated. Rather, it fit into an established New York pattern of squelching unpopular opinions.

Bill de Blasio, the public advocate and one of the influential figures who demanded removal of the anti-abortion billboard, saw no assault on free speech. There should never be a law prohibiting this sort of sign, Mr. de Blasio said, “but to have a serious debate, to have people express their outrage, and then to have a private owner of the advertising space decide that it was ultimately not appropriate, that to me is a functioning democracy.”

Not quite, said Norman Siegel, a leading civil liberties lawyer. To him, freedom of expression took a hit.

“The principle of free speech is easy when the speech is something that’s popular and noncontroversial,” Mr. Siegel said. “The real test is when you disagree with the content of the speech and you still defend the right of someone to articulate the message.”

The city, he said, just flunked that test.

Looks like Democrats voted for the wrong public advocate candidate. It's wrong when conservatives do it, too. At least the Supreme Court got it right this time.