Government Vice President (and
Defendant in a federal civil rights
lawsuit) Marty Esquivel argues that
the law is too unsettled for him to
have known that what he does to me
in the following video violated my
First Amendment rights.
Esquivel ejected me, he insists, not because of what I was saying, but because what I was saying included personal attacks and dealt with personnel issues. It did not, as you heard. Even if it did, both are protected speech under any ethical interpretation of First Amendment rights.
Esquivel is arguing that I have offered my petition one too many times.
Which begs a question;
If the government is allowed to ignore petitions for even one more time than petitions are allowed to be delivered, what is the point in protecting the right to deliver them to people who openly admit, they are ignoring them?What is the point in Constitutional protection for the human rights to speak freely and petition the government, if the government has no obligation to respond to the petition in good faith?
However you look at it, the First Amendment either protects what I did at the public forum November 4, 2009, or it does not.
If it does not,
we are in a world of shit.
The terms of public in-servitude are the prerogative of the people.
The people get to decide the limits on their liberty, not the government.
And especially, not Marty Esquivel.
photo Mark Bralley
No comments:
Post a Comment