Robert this is not a “prospective victory� or “mixed victory�, it is a full victory that overturned the law in question as unconstitutional. In addition it was a final ruling, the April 2nd court date is only for Judge Barton to present his ruling that he made today orally in writing. Likewise Robert is wrong when he states that the law is, “Expected to be declared unconstitutional.� No, it already has been declared unconstitutional.
Robert, you seem to recognize this later in your writing when you state, “Still, this is an unexpected and encouraging decision by Barton.�
Next question
Robert you also state, �Unfortunately in the same hearing, Barton found Mu the Flute Player guilty.� I am insulted by this untrue statement. It makes it look like I ignored a co-defendants plight. Mu’s case, and hearing, was entirely separate from mine. I did not see its outcome because my hearing was finished and I had to rush to school before the court got to his.
I fully support Mu’s case, but your attempt to lump the two together to paint a defeat out of a victory, along side your refusal to recognize that a positive ruling has been made for free speech, I find this behavior strange.
I will talk to Mu about Tony Bole and give Mu his contact information if he is interested.
Robert, it is as if you expected complete and total justice from now until eternity, or at least for the rest of the morning, in Judge Barton’s court for this ruling to have any meaning. Likewise you expect the worst from the City Council “patching up� the law with no optimism about what kinds of other pressures the City government will be under from the public, and the courts, to prevent them from carrying out more violations of free speech rights.
Whatever arguments were used in court, the fact that much of the public supports free speech was a fundamental factor in this outcome. Likewise this will be important in deciding what the City Council does.
Your attempts to paint a defeat in the face of a victory are an unfortunate error. Again I thank you for your support.
Re: Santa Cruz Law Limiting Free Speech Ruled Unconstitutional
Date Edited: 19 Mar 2004 07:00:36 PM
Robert, you seem to recognize this later in your writing when you state, “Still, this is an unexpected and encouraging decision by Barton.�
Next question
Robert you also state, �Unfortunately in the same hearing, Barton found Mu the Flute Player guilty.� I am insulted by this untrue statement. It makes it look like I ignored a co-defendants plight. Mu’s case, and hearing, was entirely separate from mine. I did not see its outcome because my hearing was finished and I had to rush to school before the court got to his.
I fully support Mu’s case, but your attempt to lump the two together to paint a defeat out of a victory, along side your refusal to recognize that a positive ruling has been made for free speech, I find this behavior strange.
I will talk to Mu about Tony Bole and give Mu his contact information if he is interested.
Robert, it is as if you expected complete and total justice from now until eternity, or at least for the rest of the morning, in Judge Barton’s court for this ruling to have any meaning. Likewise you expect the worst from the City Council “patching up� the law with no optimism about what kinds of other pressures the City government will be under from the public, and the courts, to prevent them from carrying out more violations of free speech rights.
Whatever arguments were used in court, the fact that much of the public supports free speech was a fundamental factor in this outcome. Likewise this will be important in deciding what the City Council does.
Your attempts to paint a defeat in the face of a victory are an unfortunate error. Again I thank you for your support.
New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz