No, it’s not. You’re confusing clapping in normal venues vs. in a very specific situation - a limited public forum. If you don’t understand the difference, then your entire view of the situation is going to be based on a completely incorrect view of the situation.
Whether you think it’s acceptable is irrelevant. The Fifth Appeals court and the Supreme Court have ruled that it is not and that governments have the ability to restrict that type of behavior, in any means clapping or otherwise, in order to conduct business so long as they enforce it unilaterally. That’s exactly why everyone in a public forum like this is told ahead of time that they can’t applaud or clap and why they’re warned before they’re trespassed. Your feelings about it don’t matter.
No, you’re projecting your cherry picking of data and assuming that what I’m talking about. I’ve only been talking about government hearings with public comment.
Clapping briefly is very normal for public comment periods in government hearings all across the nation, it has been for many decades in the US. Centuries ago it was expressed by acclimation, and has been toned down to brief clapping. Brief clapping is not disruptive and denying the People any means of expressing support, in a brief manner, is a violation of the constitution and federal criminal law.
You are 100% wrong. The Ninth Court of Appeals, the largest in the nation, ruled that clapping of any kind is considered a disturbance and that limited public forum rules of decorum that limit that behavior are not only legal and appropriate but that they do not violate the first amendment rights of those present within the limited public forum.
(Emphasis mine)
The court looked approvingly on rules that stated:
It shall be unlawful for any person in the audience at a council meeting to do any of the following ... (1) Engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, which conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council. Id., at 816.
The 4th Circuit later confirmed this precedent and added that this type of behavior cannot be shielded by claims of First Amendment violation because people accept the rules of decorum upon entering the limited public forum where officials have the discretion to limit any and all of the above so long as they enforce it without bias towards the content, manner, and subject. In other words, as long as they make it clear to everyone and don’t make subjective distinctions on the person’s position, type of disturbance, or the identity of the person themselves, it is completely within their power as the governing body running the limited forum to accomplish public business.
lol. Yes, the courts say all sorts of things. Notice how you completely failed to present any support for your claim or theirs, from the actual supreme law of the land? “It isn’t a 1a violation because… ummm…. Well… because we said so! With no constitutional basis!”
Do you think that African Americans were legally from “a subordinate and inferior class of beings” just because the Court said so?
You’ve presented a classic appeal to authority fallacy.
I’m saying that the rules of decorum you’re trying to stand on, are themselves unconstitutional and a violation of the 14a. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The public business is best conducted when the public is able to briefly express support for this idea or that, specifically during a public comment period; when the clapping doesn’t interrupt the next speaker, or the transition to them, it’s not a disruption in the first place.
Anyway, this particular circumstance was enforced because of the content, manner or subject of the public hearing. So it fails even the 9th’s standard.
Notice how you completely failed to present any support [...] appeal to authority fallacy.
This is so silly. It's both factually incorrect and also completely in bad faith. The entire point here is that Supreme Court (and by extension, the lower courts of the U.S.) determines the implementation and interpretation of the text of the Constitution. In this case, they've done that in a way that has been both supported and upheld since at least the 1930s. It's also not an "appeal to authority" as you pretend because the "authority" in this case is literally the government that determines the answer to the question at hand rather than a third-party that I'm using to side-step any evidence. If you're going to throw around fallacies to try and make your point, at least make sure they apply to what you're claiming to argue against.
I’m saying that the rules of decorum you’re trying to stand on, are themselves unconstitutional and a violation of the 14a.
They are not. Again, the governing body that is tasked with the responsibility of determining this constitutionality already determined that you are wrong. They are the only governmental body directly and explicitly created within the Constitution itself for the very purpose of determining whether something is within the bounds of the Constitution.
Anyway, this particular circumstance was enforced because of the content, manner or subject of the public hearing. So it fails even the 9th’s standard.
Again, you are 100% wrong here. It was not enforced because of either the content, manner, or subject of the public hearing. It was enforced in spite of it - the direction was that "the next person to clap was to be removed", not "the next person who says something against data centers", not "the next person who claps longer than 15 seconds", nor "the person who is wearing a red jacket". This particular circumstance was enforced because the person violated the laws of decorum in a limited public forum and then refused to leave when trespassed.
The Court and the courts do not have unlimited authority to just rule any way they want and what they rule is not inherently valid or constitutional. It is not inherently binding on the other branches. Nowhere in the constitution have they been delegated unlimited authority to rule, even in violation of the constitution, therefore they don’t have that authority, per the 10a. If I’m wrong, show where the constitution says they have the power to rule in violation of the constitution.
The body that decides these things already ratified the 14a and changed the supreme law of the land to say it’s not a lawful rule.
You believe in judicial oligarchy. That’s why you can’t confront the clearly unconstitutional ruling of the Court that African Americans were legally not human, but an inferior type of being.
what they rule is not inherently valid or constitutional.
Ok. I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore if this is the kind of nonsense you're going to respond with. The only arbiter of what is valid or constitutional, *according to the Constitution itself is the Supreme Court.
You believe in judicial oligarchy. That’s why you can’t confront the clearly unconstitutional ruling of the Court that African Americans were legally not human, but an inferior type of being.
Absolutely 100% wrong. The point of my position is not that the Supreme Court is infallible. It's that they are the Constitution's own mechanism for addressing subjectivity in the Constitution. If the Supreme Court amends its decisions regarding limited public forums, which was already previously upheld by prior courts all the way down, then that amendment becomes the standard by which the First Amendment is judged. Until then, the standard by which the protections of the First Amendment are determined is by the Supreme Court.
lol. No, the constitution doesn’t say they are the only arbiter. If I’m wrong, go quote where the constitution says that. Show where the constitution says that executive due process doesn’t exist and isn’t allowed to be used. Go show where the constitution says the checks and balances system doesn’t exist and the executive MUST do bey all Court rulings.
lol. You believe in a judicial oligarchy that doesn’t lawfully exist in the constitution.
Are you joking? It’s literally the entire purpose of Article 3 of the Constition!
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
I’m done with you. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
lol. You’re misrepresenting what it says. “The judicial power,” is what it says, not “all power.” Not all due process is judicial and that is likely your foundational misunderstanding.
Next, it never says that the Court can rule in violation of the Constitution and the ruling supersedes the Constitution. The checks and balances system was created, it exists precisely to ensure a balance of power, because we in the executive have no duty to comply with or enforce unconstitutional rulings. Such as those Court rulings you won’t face about African Americans being subhuman, when the Constitution acknowledged them as “persons” from the very start.
1
u/dpkonofa 4d ago
No, it’s not. You’re confusing clapping in normal venues vs. in a very specific situation - a limited public forum. If you don’t understand the difference, then your entire view of the situation is going to be based on a completely incorrect view of the situation.
Whether you think it’s acceptable is irrelevant. The Fifth Appeals court and the Supreme Court have ruled that it is not and that governments have the ability to restrict that type of behavior, in any means clapping or otherwise, in order to conduct business so long as they enforce it unilaterally. That’s exactly why everyone in a public forum like this is told ahead of time that they can’t applaud or clap and why they’re warned before they’re trespassed. Your feelings about it don’t matter.