Petitions and the BOK Center

[Wrinkle]

The formal policy for a public facility should be determined by our representatives (Council), not a subcontractor (SMG).

While the Council probably could ban any such activities between the doors and inside the 12-foot public right-of-way, a more moderate policy should be considered on such a broad area of public interest.

Council, nor anyone else, has any authority to prevent public activities of this sort on public rights-of-way.

Certainly, it's within the scope of local government to require SMG to submit a proposed public policy plan to the Council for authorization. But, SMG has no authority to set it.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

The formal policy for a public facility should be determined by our representatives (Council), not a subcontractor (SMG).

While the Council probably could ban any such activities between the doors and inside the 12-foot public right-of-way, a more moderate policy should be considered on such a broad area of public interest.

Council, nor anyone else, has any authority to prevent public activities of this sort on public rights-of-way.

Certainly, it's within the scope of local government to require SMG to submit a proposed public policy plan to the Council for authorization. But, SMG has no authority to set it.

I'm guessing that since the city hired SMG to manage the facility, then by proxy they can set and dictate policy on rules of the arena.  I'd be willing to bet that is in their management contract, which is probably pretty standard for most arenas around the country.

[misanthropic]

quote:Are you saying you would be ok with someone screaming out about a petition from your front porch?  Because that's how I see this.  If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but I hear how this lady was in the entry way just in front of the door to the arena.  That would be synonymous with front porch to me.

If they're out in the street or down on the corner, then they'd have the right granted that they aren't disturbing the public.

Obviously it is ok to scream out on downtown sidewalks. The bus transfer station seems to be the home for religious wack jobs twice a week screaming religious bullcrap for all to hear. Even those who are in buildings behind thick glass can hear these idiots. I've seen cops drive right by these guys and never give it a second thought.

[cannon_fodder]

Shadows, the Roman Republic lasted from 510 BC until Octavian had himself declared emperor for in 27 BC.  That's WAY more than 47 years.  What's more, if you want to hold Rome out as an example then we have to cull the heard a ton before we are on their level of Republic.  Basically, if your parents are worth less than $5,000,000 when you are born you don't get to run for office.  That would be closer to the Roman "Republic."

Horrible dribble.
- - -

Per the BOk Center and free speech:

Free speech is most protected in a "public forum."  A public forum is a place that "in time out of mind" has been used for the gathering of the people to exchange ideas and advocate their viewpoint. All speech can be regulated for time, place, and manner with any reasonable restrictions (ie. you can't flash mirrors in someones eyes from a corner to get their attention, during normal business hours, or you can't block people).

If a place is a public forum any restriction on the content of speech is subject to a strict scrutiny review.  Any content regulation must be subject neutral and facilitate a compelling governmental interest without going any further than necessary to accomplish that end.
The Supreme Court has held jails, fair grounds, and airports to be outside the realm of traditional public forums. It is unlikely that a publicly owned arena would be considered a public forum (not used in such a manner traditionally, not the stated purpose, restricted audience, etc.).  

In a non-public forum, restrictions on speech must only be "reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum."  It can not allow some political content, and not others.  The content regulation must be neutral, but if it so wishes it can exclude the content in it's entirety.  The "reasonable" test is easy to pass if some side can not scream "that's not fair."  The only exception is a case where LAX banned all forms of protest and the Justices held it to be too broad - but the BOk Center is not LAX.

Banning all "speech" would probably be considered a reasonable restriction given that it is unbiased, facilitates an important government function (operation of the arena) and leaves open plenty of alternative forums for communication (sidewalks downtown).  The sidewalk in front of the arena is certainly a free speech zone and the only restrictions placed must pass strict scrutiny  (though mandating one person per corner has passed where more than that could disrupt foot traffic, also note that a sidewalk that would lead just to the arena might not be).  

Basically, your notion of free speech is wrong - they can restrict it a lot more and in many more places than you imagine.  Unless it has been used "time out of mind" for public speech then it can be restricted (minority view: if it is the modern main street.  That would enable arenas, malls, and airports to be open for speech). I don't agree with the new found notion that your right not to be offended or bothered trumps my right to free speech... but that is the direction we are heading.  Swearing in a public stadium can get you kicked out, but swearing in a courthouse is protected speech.

Not a well researched opinion on my part (what I remember from ConLaw), but SMG has danced to this tune before and probably knows what they are doing.  You can find interesting articles if you search "Public Forum" & "free speech."

[Renaissance]

Right--the sidewalks are a public forum.  The municipal facilities are not.  

Just like you don't have the right to walk into any City Hall meeting room to conduct your speech, you don't have the right to walk into the arena to do so.

Sidewalk is fair game, though.  I don't know how that works as far as whether the sidewalk is considered part of the arena, though.

[inteller]

telling her to cross the street was wrong though.  SMG needs to be criticized for that.  the sidewalks surrounding the BOk center are fair game.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

telling her to cross the street was wrong though.  SMG needs to be criticized for that.  the sidewalks surrounding the BOk center are fair game.

+1. I hope the Council does weigh in on this issue.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by inteller

telling her to cross the street was wrong though.  SMG needs to be criticized for that.  the sidewalks surrounding the BOk center are fair game.

+1. I hope the Council does weigh in on this issue.

Ditto.  Public Sidewalks ARE a Free Speech zone.

SMG's actions or the actions of their Gestapo henchment acting on their behalf were wrong.

[shadows]

quote:CF quoted:
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 10:20:37
   
Shadows, the Roman Republic lasted from 510 BC until Octavian had himself declared emperor for in 27 BC. That's WAY more than 47 years. What's more, if you want to hold Rome out as an example then we have to cull the heard a ton before we are on their level of Republic.

   


Sorry, I was using the history book from the National Geographic which sets the time at 47 years of existence before the republic became so corrupt that the generals took if over.  Our history would have to be taken from the 4th grade level in foreign schools because we have a habit of distorting it to fit the purpose.  It has taken us 58 years to reach the same point of history as Rome did .

The biggest laugh for the day is buying a 75 million dollar city hall with the public’s money, for public use  and signing a lease agreement that the building cannot have a sign on it declaring it is the Tulsa City Hall.

[cannon_fodder]

So wait, George Bush has been appointed emperor for life?  Or our generals have taken over?  And I thought we were an older republic than 57 years.  I'm so confused.

Perhaps you need better history books.  Most historians agree on the follow time line:

Roman Kingdom 753 BC – 509 BC  

Roman Republic 509 BC – 27 BC

Roman Empire 27 BC – AD 476

Eastern Roman Empire - Split (330AD) until 1453 AD

So, unless you have some source which actually says the Roman Republic ended in the 400's BC, I call BS.

Cicero was Consul of the Republic in 63BC, and governor before that.  His writings CLEARLY and all historians of the era and subsequent clearly indicate a Republican form of government.  Not a Democratic Republic as we are familiar with, but a Republic form none the less.

We certainly distort history, but in this instance you are just wrong.

[shadows]

CF: The Romans were very reluctant to take time to record their history.   It is possible that the empire was a spin-off of the Egypt/India/Athens empires being recognized in 7 centuries B.C or earlier.  
 
Constantine the great ((312-377) united the empire into the Holy Roman Empire whereas history began to be recorded by the church, so have I read.

Since Notional Geographic took the time to publish what they believe were the unwritten chronicles, should we inform them so they can correct history?  

The change in government happened in the 50’s to a government by corporations and if you get texts books from foreign learning intuitions they would identify where our government comes more corrupt each year.   It is a well marked path that has been laid out by others.

[shadows]

quote:Hoss: Are you saying you would be ok with someone screaming out about a petition from your front porch? Because that's how I see this. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but I hear how this lady was in the entry way just in front of the door to the arena. That would be synonymous with front porch to me.

Code enforcement has a strict set of rules on what you can do on your private front porch and among them would be disturbing the peace.   Also included are the codes on what  you are able to put on the so called private attached porch of your private homestead, such as even chairs.  Your home is not your castle  

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

CF: The Romans were very reluctant to take time to record their history.   It is possible that the empire was a spin-off of the Egypt/India/Athens empires being recognized in 7 centuries B.C or earlier.  
 
Constantine the great ((312-377) united the empire into the Holy Roman Empire whereas history began to be recorded by the church, so have I read.

Since Notional Geographic took the time to publish what they believe were the unwritten chronicles, should we inform them so they can correct history?  

The change in government happened in the 50’s to a government by corporations and if you get texts books from foreign learning intuitions they would identify where our government comes more corrupt each year.   It is a well marked path that has been laid out by others.

While not commenting on your modern history, your ancient history is way, way off.

The "Holy Roman Empire" was a figure head.  He (or on occasion she)had no real authority for most of the existence of the title.  It was essentially a prize to see who was the German king most loved by the Pope.  Constantine was the ruler of the Eastern Empire and failed in his bid to reunite the actual Roman Empire.

Further back, Rome actually had very good records.  They were, in no way, a spin off of the Egyptians (they conquered Egypt just before becoming an Empire though, with Cleopatra being the last real Ptolemaic Pharaoh).  Other than Alexander there is no record of Europeans having contact with the Indians up to the fall of Rome and until Marco Polo.  And their only affiliation with Greece was a very non-amicable conquest of several Greek colonies (Sicily, Corsica, some in Southern Italy) and eventually all the Greek states.

They loved Greece and emulated them in many ways.  Many influential Romans had homes in Greece and spent time there (Cicero, Augustus, Brutus, among others).  But to imply Rome was an off-shoot of Greece  

The history of Rome is remarkably well chronicled and well known.  Given that it is, of course, the perspective of Romans.  As they were the preeminent scholars at the time and were, of course, the proverbial winners - but "historians" existed.  Many public figures in Rome wrote biographies of sorts.  Emperors had official chronicles.  Military campaigns were recorded and dispatched all over the empire.  Scholars kept archives in Rome, Jerusalem, Athens and Alexandria.  What I'm saying is actual history of Rome is not lacking.

Not to mention the tax records.  They included everything from money from looting (including how much they took from the Temple), to estate taxes, import taxes, licensing fees, governmental fees and on and on.  They also include expenditures, assets, population figures.  Any bureaucratic government can be tracked by their records, and the best records are usually tax records.

In short:  Roman history is well known.  They were not an extension of the Indian empire.