English in the US

[Empty Hands]

As for Empty Hands argument that the Bill of Rights, without being tested, does not apply ~ or at least may not apply. I haven't heard that before, but, I could agree with the idea.

It was surprising to me too. It should tell you something that it took a former judge to bring it to my attention. It isn't exactly common knowledge amongst the masses, even the educated ones.

 

[crushing]

These last several posts are interesting.

crushing, do you understand how I brought the first amendment into the discussion now? My point was that if we, as a society prohibited a person from suing over the stupid little sign, we would be preventing him from seeking a redress of grievences. Even if it is a stupid lawsuit, we all have the right under the first amendment to file it.

They have been very interesting. Yes sir, I did misunderstand the reason behind the First Amendment quote. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[MJS]

MJS, if you do go to Italy please don't go to MacDonalds!

LOL, no worries. If I'm going to travel that far, I'm going to experience the cooking in that country. No fast food for me.

 

[MJS]

How do you think the city, town, would have become aware of this?

Well, not every violation warrants a lawsuit does it? I mean, how do the town officials and police find out about liquor stores selling to minors? Just hard to believe that this is what it took..a lawsuit, for someone to realize he had a sign requesting people to speak English in the business.

The question is, 'WHY' is this news? 'Why' does this lawsuit have some people so riled up that they use our broadcast airwaves to spend an hour talking about it? What is the purpose and motivation of the people like Michael Smirconish who choose this topic to make news?

Because it caught the eye of the papers, tv, etc., and it was the current flavor of the moment. Like other things, it'll die down.

 

[Cruentus]

I will quote for you the First Amendement to the Constitution of the United States of America.



Are you suggesting that a person give away his First Amendment Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances because you believe the lawsuit is "silly"?

And, we still haven't address the idea of 'Who Benefits' by this being in the media. Cui Bono?

Hey, I am not arguing against the right to take this up in court because one definatily has the right; I am just criticizing the audacity.

And you keep saying Cui Bono, implying a hidden motive on the part of the media. So, what might that motive be?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I think, 5-0 Kenpo, that the first amendment does not require a grievence to be against the government in order to have the protection of the First Amendment. Although that is an interesting way of looking at the subject. If we look to some other high profile lawsuits ~ say against the tobacco industry ~ do we citizens have the right to file lawsuits against business under the First Amendment, or not? Or could there be a law that exempts an industry, or person, from a lawsuit; let's say, no one can sue the pharamcuetical industry for heartfailure caused by blood pressure medicine.

The Bill of Rights, or issues contained in the Constitution are not the only things one can sue over. There is the Business and Professions Code (or whatever it is called in other states) which one can use, and is usually regarding tort issues, not civil rights issues.

If you look at every other section of the Bill of Rights, and the interpretations thereof, they are all regarding the limitations of government. For instance, only the government (and its agents), not individuals, can violate a person's Fiurht Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, not every violation warrants a lawsuit does it? I mean, how do the town officials and police find out about liquor stores selling to minors? Just hard to believe that this is what it took..a lawsuit, for someone to realize he had a sign requesting people to speak English in the business.

Because it caught the eye of the papers, tv, etc., and it was the current flavor of the moment. Like other things, it'll die down.

I think that the town health inspectors could have inspected the resturants processes and not noticed the window sticker as a violation. The liquor commission could have seen the sticker and not noticed it as a violation. It is a silly lawsuit.

But the lawsuit, itself, I think, can be seen as a way to determine if the window sticker does violate the ordinance. The language of the law is not as clear cut as 'don't sell booze to someone until they are 21'. The courts will decide if the sticker is a violation, and then the legislative bodies can clarify the ordinances to meet the will of their constiuencies.

Yes, it is the current flavor, but it is part of a meal that is being served up in our country. When the leading candidates for President are trying to show that each is tougher than the next on illegal immigrants, (sanctuary cities, sanctuary mansion), I think some citizens are going to get rolled up with those they are attempting to evict.

Hey, I am not arguing against the right to take this up in court because one definatily has the right; I am just criticizing the audacity.

And you keep saying Cui Bono, implying a hidden motive on the part of the media. So, what might that motive be?

I think audacity can be a good thing. I think it was Ghandi that said, "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Doesn't the first part of that idea, define audacity?

As to motive, I see three; fear, blame, distraction. Perhaps a bit of each. To instill fear of the undocumented taking power from the citizen. To blame the undocumented for problems in schooling and healthcare. To distract the citizens from government policies weakening our economy and transferrring wealth and power to corporations.

 

[michaeledward]

The Bill of Rights, or issues contained in the Constitution are not the only things one can sue over. There is the Business and Professions Code (or whatever it is called in other states) which one can use, and is usually regarding tort issues, not civil rights issues.

If you look at every other section of the Bill of Rights, and the interpretations thereof, they are all regarding the limitations of government. For instance, only the government (and its agents), not individuals, can violate a person's Fiurht Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.

Yes, the Bill of Rights spells out limitations of the goverment. Although the language is complex and now two centuries behind us, I think one can read the first amendment, as related to this issue as:

Congress shall make no law respecting ... or prohibiting ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievences.

There are five specific rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. I have omitted some of the language; appropriately, I believe, to show that this amendment means that government can't write laws that prevent citizens, who feel slighted, from seeking a resolution in the court system.

He is not suing over a violation of the first amendment. But rather, the first amendment gives him the right to bring this lawsuit. And our government can't do anything to stop him from doing so.

 

[MBuzzy]

The City of Philadelphia brought a discrimination complaint against Mr. Vento via the HRC. While some find it offensive, Mr. Vento maintains his First Amendment right of freedom of speech.
Mr. Weiss said Mr. Vento's case is unusual, since the HRC has no history of bringing a case against someone without a complainant.
In May 2006, Democrat City Councilman Jim Kenney raised the issue of the Geno's sign in City Council, calling it "inappropriate" and "negative."
Mr. Vento said the sign has been up since September 2005, but the councilman, a longtime patron, never said a word. It was only after the International Olympic Committee looked at Philadelphia that Mr. Kenney suggested he take it down.
"I want to ask him, `why didn't [the sign] bother you the nine months you knew it was up here and the 5,000 sandwiches that went out since then?'"
Mr. Vento insists no one has been refused service for not speaking English.
"If I can't understand you, you might not get the sandwich you thought you ordered," he said.
The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, which did not return phone calls at press time, has said in the past its complaint is not politically motivated.

Here's another point in this particular case. Obviously the bigger issue here is not necessarily the sign, but the fact that we have a large number of immigrants who do not speak English.

But to me, the fact that the case was NOT brought about by a complaint, but by a councilman, and is being brought by the Commission on Human Relations makes a big different. To me - no matter what he says.....its political. Just another result of the PC movement, can't offend anyone or make anyone upset!

 

[michaeledward]

That is pretty interesting. It is not quite in line with the first article, which having just re-read, indicates that a member of the commission was the original objector. But, a Olympic motivation may very well make sense.

The International Olympic Committee comes to town to scope out a bid. How would they interpret the sign? And, notice that the commissioner first suggested the sign be removed.

But why can't a complaint be filed by a member of the commission, or a councilman?

Yes, it is, still, a silly lawsuit. But that is still the way we settle disputes, Politically Correct disputes or other kinds, as well. And, if the IOC is involved, the stakes are much higher, aren't they? (pun intended).

But, on the other side, Mr. Vento's claim of a First Amendment Free Speech is just as silly. Does the business have the right of Free Speech? If Mr. Vento wants to make that claim for himself, put the sign on his front lawn.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Yes, the Bill of Rights spells out limitations of the goverment. Although the language is complex and now two centuries behind us, I think one can read the first amendment, as related to this issue as:

Congress shall make no law respecting ... or prohibiting ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievences.

There are five specific rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. I have omitted some of the language; appropriately, I believe, to show that this amendment means that government can't write laws that prevent citizens, who feel slighted, from seeking a resolution in the court system.

He is not suing over a violation of the first amendment. But rather, the first amendment gives him the right to bring this lawsuit. And our government can't do anything to stop him from doing so.

Ultimately, you may be right. After all, it's how the Supreme Court looks at it. But every interpretation of the Bill of Rights that I have seen, including the first amendment, relates to the government, not individuals. So I don't know why we would go ahead and change that now.

For further ingo, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/21.html#1

 

[Cruentus]

I think that the town health inspectors could have inspected the resturants processes and not noticed the window sticker as a violation. The liquor commission could have seen the sticker and not noticed it as a violation. It is a silly lawsuit.

But the lawsuit, itself, I think, can be seen as a way to determine if the window sticker does violate the ordinance. The language of the law is not as clear cut as 'don't sell booze to someone until they are 21'. The courts will decide if the sticker is a violation, and then the legislative bodies can clarify the ordinances to meet the will of their constiuencies.

Yes, it is the current flavor, but it is part of a meal that is being served up in our country. When the leading candidates for President are trying to show that each is tougher than the next on illegal immigrants, (sanctuary cities, sanctuary mansion), I think some citizens are going to get rolled up with those they are attempting to evict.



I think audacity can be a good thing. I think it was Ghandi that said, "First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Doesn't the first part of that idea, define audacity?

As to motive, I see three; fear, blame, distraction. Perhaps a bit of each. To instill fear of the undocumented taking power from the citizen. To blame the undocumented for problems in schooling and healthcare. To distract the citizens from government policies weakening our economy and transferrring wealth and power to corporations.

See, I disagree with you on the motive though. Basically, the media is a business (for better or for worse). I think that the story is audacious (which we both agree on), a little outlandish, and therefore will attract attention and an audience. The larger the audience, the higher the ratings, the more the ad dollars, and, well, you know; capitalism at work. I don't think that there is a grand scheme against the 'undocumented.' I think that illegal immigration is a hot topic and attracts attention, but I don't think that the media has a grand plan when they chase extravagant stories.

 

[Big Don]

I think that the town health inspectors could have inspected the resturants processes and not noticed the window sticker as a violation. The liquor commission could have seen the sticker and not noticed it as a violation.

I am curious how a sign that has nothing to do with either health or liquor, and, btw, I don't think that place sells intoxicants that aren't meat based, would fall under the purview of either the Health inspector or liquor commission.