[RD] Marty Walsh versus the Bill of Rights

Is the following a valid legal question in this case: whose free speech is being violated if one of these threatening notes is thrown away by DPW wokers?

If the space-saver hasn't signed the message, it's effectively just a random piece of paper, isn't it, i.e. not a particular individual's expression of his or her views that calls for protection? Wouldn't it have to be some specific person's expression for it to be a First Amendment matter? And isn't that surrendered when you make the speech anonymously?
 
Speech taped to an illegal obstruction does not attach First Amendment rights, and therefore the vagueness and broadness of the order doesn't matter. The speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
 
A policy of non-enforcement of city code under a snow emergency doesn't change the city ordinances about obstructing a public way. The mayor is given discretion when it comes to enforcement, and the mayor has himself suspended the 48 hours rule at his discretion, including enforcement of the law on any and all space savers on the South End.
 
An object placed in the area of a street normally used for parked cars is not, generally, an obstruction to a public way because no one is generally driving in the area where the cars are parked.
The mayor has discretion for enforcement, certainly, but when that discretion is based upon speech content is runs up against the First Amendment.
 
How, exactly, is blocking a public parking space not obstructing a public right of way? It's preventing the public access to something they'd otherwise have access to.
 
So, at what point do we agree that repeated presentation of evidence interspersed with unsupported restatement of the obviously demonstrated falsehood becomes boring?
 
Timsup2nothin said:
So, at what point do we agree that repeated presentation of evidence interspersed with unsupported restatement of the obviously demonstrated falsehood becomes boring?
Click to expand...

BvBPL posting a link the second sentence of which disproves his point is kind of funny, though.

Indeed, there are no laws that recognize Boston’s quirky wintertime tradition at all.
Click to expand...
 
metalhead said:
How, exactly, is blocking a public parking space not obstructing a public right of way? It's preventing the public access to something they'd otherwise have access to.
Click to expand...
Because it isn't interfering with the flow of traffic. Obstruction is a test of the ability of others to travel:

Boston Code said:
16-10.2 Obstruction to Travel.
No person shall, within any market limits, so occupy or obstruct any sidewalk as not to leave a clear and direct passage for travellers thereon; or so place or stop any vehicle abreast of, or near to, any other vehicle as not to leave a clear and direct passage for vehicles.
(CBC 1975 Ord. T14 § 280; Ord. 1991 c. 5 § 23; Ord. 1992 c. 7 § 4)
16-12.2 Loitering.
No person shall saunter or loiter in a street in such a manner as to obstruct or endanger travellers or in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace or incite to riot; but nothing in this section shall be construed to curtail, abridge, or limit the right or opportunity of any person to exercise the right of peaceful persuasion guaranteed by Section 24 of Chapter 149 of the General Laws or to curtail, abridge, or limit the intendment of any statute of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
(CBC 1975 Ord. T14 § 286) Penalty, see subsection 16-32.6
Click to expand...

There doesn't appear to be any city ordinance specific to obstruction of a public way through the use of an unspecified object. Suffice it to say that a space saver is not an obstruction because it does not interfere with travel on the road as it instead interferes only with parking.

Lacking any specific laws on the books and with no specific ordinance on the matter, which leaves in the hands of the mayor's office. The mayor has made space savers legal for two days after a storm. So they are legal within that range because the mayor says so.
 
BvBPL said:
There doesn't appear to be any city ordinance specific to obstruction of a public way through the use of an unspecified object. Suffice it to say that a space saver is not an obstruction because it does not interfere with travel on the road as it instead interferes only with parking.
Click to expand...

Try this:

16-12.36 Street Openings.
No person shall open or occupy any portion of a street, except in accordance with a permit from the Commissioner of Public Works. Such permit shall be exhibited to a Police Officer upon his request.

As I told you, you can't put anything in the street, other than a car, without a permit. It is illegal. It is illegal in every city in America, I'd wager.
 
It seems this long debate could be easily resolved if someone asked the same question in /r/legaladvice on reddit. The right answer would funnel to the top and you guys could stop going back and forth

Myself, I am of the opinion that "it is illegal but usually not enforced" makes the most sense. But I am not a lawyer
 
I'm a lawyer and I'm quite confident in my conclusion. I'm frankly kind of flabbergasted that someone would argue for this long that placing things in the street is not illegal.
 
metalhead said:
I'm a lawyer and I'm quite confident in my conclusion. I'm frankly kind of flabbergasted that someone would argue for this long that placing things in the street is not illegal.
Click to expand...

Even leaving aside the legality of it, I'm frankly kind of flabbergasted that someone would think that this is remotely a free speech issue.
 
metalhead said:
I'm a lawyer and I'm quite confident in my conclusion. I'm frankly kind of flabbergasted that someone would argue for this long that placing things in the street is not illegal.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, agree with you completely, and would like to once again point out that BvBPL has a long standing record of displaying no intellectual integrity in these situations and cannot properly be said to be arguing.
 
metalhead said:
you can't put anything in the street, other than a car, without a permit. It is illegal. It is illegal in every city in America, I'd wager.
Click to expand...

You'd have to define "city" for me, amongst other things, before I'd accept this as having a snowballs chance of being accurate. ;)
 
Farm Boy said:
You'd have to define "city" for me, amongst other things, before I'd accept this as having a snowballs chance of being accurate. ;)
Click to expand...

Cities are defined as places where people have no inclination to drive a tractor on a street.
 
Well, that will fail Metalhead's argument then, if that's the definition. I'd... guess. Definitions are his thing more than mine.

Sorry for being lazy. I'd usually be entertained by looking that up. The flu is unpleasant and I feel dumb.
 
Farm Boy said:
You'd have to define "city" for me, amongst other things, before I'd accept this as having a snowballs chance of being accurate. ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry. "Motor Vehicle." Does that help? ;)
 
Partially, yes. But I don't know why my Focus qualifies as a city. It's got like a population of 5 tops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom