1st Amendment Rights Blatantly Violated in Allentown PA

[NinjightNationCorp]

I want to have my own constitutional group. 

[trickz323]

well the amendements protects all of us but if u sign a contract stating u cant talk about whateva and violate that by saying something, then u suffer the penalty to whatever is stated in that contract which you may or maynot appeal in court

[xiiiFyre]

WACKY WAVING INFLATABLE ARM FLALING TUBE MAN!

WACKY WAVING INFLATABLE ARM FLALING TUBE MAN!

WACKY WAVING INFLATABLE ARM FLALING TUBE MAN!

WACKY WAVING INFLATABLE ARM FLALING TUBE MAN!

[MANSHOTS]

how does muelenberg college hurt the first amendment rights of the carpenter's union?

[madpalX]

independent video is powerful-right on.

[AnFcowboy79]

our politicians only use the constitution to wipe with. We have very few freedoms left!!

[stealthyspider]

Over here in the UK we are under a police state now. We have lost all our freedoms. Please fight to keep yours. Dont let it end up like in the UK.

[highwaysong007]

I guess i just dont understand why or how that could occur... why cant you all just go take back your country? scared? what?not trying to be rude... I just dont understand?

[palmostositive]

marshal law is right around the corner here in the u.s. so get ready to fight for it.

[schwank167]

Agreed.  In relation to this clip however, this man is constitutionally protected.

[NDAaron]

Maybe so..and maybe there's more to the story...nah NOBODY who posts cips on Youtube has ever edited or chopped them to fit thier personal agendas!!!! Of course you could very well be right! I'm less likely to come to that conclusion after a 1:37 clip here with out hearing a few seconds from the otherside as well..just me ;-)

[truknights]

glad you didnt name that dancing man at the sign pork chop...

[SlickBlade]

yea tom, don't you agree that in situations to save peoples lives gag orders are constitutional?

[cyberTrebuchet]

Certainly not. One person's rights may never rightfully be infringed upon by anyone else for any reason.

[d4005]

I can't beleive some one would say something this stupid: "yea tom, don't you agree that in situations to save peoples lives gag orders are constitutional?"

These people really don't seem to understand the bill of rights.

[NDAaron]

I was in the Air Force exposed to classified information. So by your assesment I should be free to talk about it with whomever I please right after all, telling me not to is an infringement of my rights...nevermind that releasing classified information puts the entire nation at risk...I should be able to discuss it even if disclosure puts you and your family in peril....RIGHT???

[mattycro]

Don't you implicitly agree not to disclose classified information just by hearing it? I'm not military, but I've been under the impression that the act of receiving classified information implies agreement not to share it with unauthorized people.

[NDAaron]

By your standard who cares what I agree to or not...say I dont agree now ISN'T IT MY RIGHT UNDER FREE SPEECH???

[NDAaron]

Also in circumstances where unathorized people come in contact with classified information that they are not otherwise entitled to are also prohibitied from disclosing that information to other unauthorized folks...there's never been any agreement on their part...so is thier first ammendment right now violated if they get arrested for discolsure??

[schwank167]

in matters of national security where this is classified targeting information that may endanger american soldiers' lives? sure.

A labor dispute.. certainly not. POLICE STATE HERE WE COME! Keep on being complacent everyone, it will all work out okay when you get that 401k update at the end of the month!!!! As long as we keep the wife in a beamer its ALLL GOOOD!!!!

[NDAaron]

You make a valid argument by the distinction. And I wasnt trying to compare the two. The case I was making actually had nothing to do with the clip...just pointing out the falacy behind the notion that "one person's rights may never rightfully be infringed upon by anyone else for any reason". Limitations on the first ammendment are recognized by the USSC and reasonably so...ie the ol standby: yelling fire in a crowded theater whithout a fire present...speech yes, constitutionally protected NO.

[floridaman2000]

@cyberTrebuchet you are a fucking low life dumb ass did you know you could have been arrested for video taping in public, i am trying to contact youtube about ALL of these videos like yours with you in public illegally video and audio recording which is against federal procedures

[36mauijim]

@floridaman2000 you dumb fuck anyone can be taped in a public place. learn the law before spouting such bullshit. better yet just fuck off

[cyberTrebuchet]

@floridaman2000 I do apologize; I didn't realize I needed the permission of your federal henchmen. I hope youtube does something about all this unauthorized communication. All Hail the State.

[Thjeca]

@floridaman2000 It is not illegal to record in public, you retarded motherfucker.

[mannic55]

@floridaman2000

arrested for video taping in public???? uuhhhh.... dont think so.

[floridaman2000]

@mannic55 filming in public is against federal statues look it up

[mannic55]

@floridaman2000

bullshit. contacting youtube? hahahahahahaha get a hobby. we can film wherever the hell we want. you goona stop it netcop?

[MrEmango1]

@cyberTrebuchet So, you witness a multiple murder, and you call the cops. You get asked to testify, but are threatened by family/friends of the killer(s). You wouldn't want the court room sealed when you testify? Or are you okay with being targeted? How does your family feel about being possible targets?

By the way, a gag order doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. The only people that have an absolute right to be in acourt room during trial are: juries, the judge, lawyers, defendents......

[MrEmango1]

@cyberTrebuchet as well as the witness currently testifying, the court reporter (also known as stenographer) and the court officers. Spectators and reporters don't absolutely have to be allowed in the room.

[inertia186]

They probably don't care since they get paid either way (lovely unions). But for all we know, there's some kind of gag order in effect pending litigation, and the guy doesn't know the difference between a judge's edict and a federal law. Who knows?