|
Post by job on May 20, 2014 7:06:20 GMT -6
I have to agree with Kyle on one point: he should be given free latitude to speak in the City Park. In fact, the City should dedicate a corner of the park and call it Kyle’s Corner. London has long had its Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park. Anyone who can locate a soap box is free to speak on any topic. The speeches are frequently interrupted by hecklers, but that is all part of the game. Most of the speakers have narrow esoteric topics or simply goofy messages, but Lenin, Marx, Orwell, and Garvey all spoke there in the heyday of the corner. Even Chicago used to have its Bug House Square where anyone could talk about any subject. True, most of the speakers were kooks ( one-armed Cholly Wendorf, the “Cosmic Kid,” Ben “the clap doctor” Reitman; but people such as Carl Sandburg, Edgar Lee Masters, Vachel Lindsay, Clarence Darrow, Emma Goldman, Theodore Dreiser also spoke there. In their heyday, both Speakers’ Corner and Bug House Square were raucous forums with frequent interruptions from the onlookers, but the speakers soldiered ever onward. True free speech was allowed. There were no “moderators” who arrogated to themselves how the discussions would flow and what questions would be asked. A Kyle’s Corner in Streator could attract tourists. People would come from miles around to hear about aquaphonics, corrupt politicians, excessive drinking, global warming, the minimum wage, overpaid educators, etc. Over time, the corner could even morph into a neo-Chautauqua. Given Kyle’s obsession with the evils of demon rum, he might even stage a revival of T.S. Arthur’s “Ten Nights in a Bar Room.”
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 20, 2014 8:34:54 GMT -6
Did those people have to hire an attorney to be able to talk about what they want to?
How would that work here in Streator, would the Mayor stand there to make sure that no one talked about a subject that he doesn't approve of?
Who would really hear the messages in City Park though? I generally don't see many people over there. There are only a few events each year that actually bring many people to the park. Should I be over there spreading my messages during those events?
Hasn't technology changed the way that people deliver their free speech messages though?
Don't I already have a "corner" to practice my free speech?
Maybe it is a good thing that our Mayor isn't really into technology. Wouldn't he be trying to control what subjects I talk about on here if he knew?
When another City leader found out what I talk about here, he did try to control it by threatening legal action.
I am glad to hear you now say that you do support free speech, without trying to get me to hire an attorney to obtain my Constitutional right. That seems to be a different position than you have expressed in the past; maybe the concept of free speech is catching on here.
Now if we could just get our City leaders to understand our Constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by shinymoon on May 20, 2014 9:33:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 20, 2014 10:32:00 GMT -6
I don't memorize everything everyone ever posted here, but in all fairness I don't recall Job being an advocate against free speech. Yes, I was criticized by him for using my freedom of speech to talk about the First Amendment violations instead of hiring an attorney and filing legal action against our City. Isn't this whole thread really just him trying to ridicule me for enjoying my rights? Personally, I prefer to continually remind voters of the violations to try to keep them from repeating the violations, over incurring extra expenses to taxpayers. I bet we already pay those attorneys way too much. Does anyone know how many Streator taxpayer dollars they got last year? I also still wonder how much more their self-insurance experiment cost us.
|
|
|
Post by job on May 20, 2014 11:42:13 GMT -6
I don't memorize everything everyone ever posted here, but in all fairness I don't recall Job being an advocate against free speech. Yes, I was criticized by him for using my freedom of speech to talk about the First Amendment violations instead of hiring an attorney and filing legal action against our City. . There you go again Kyle, twisting what someone said. I have pointed out to you in the past that you could file a federal civil right's law suit, and if you won the City would have to pay your fees. You might even obtain punitive damages. I did mention that if the court felt that your law suit was frivolous, it might require you to pay the City's fees. Remember Kyle, you were whining about the Tort Immunity Act protects the City, and I showed you a way around that act? Do you remember saying, "Wouldn't it be more appropriate for him to tell us about Illinois Municipal Tort Immunity Law allowing our leaders to say whatever they want about citizens without any fear of incurring damages?" I still think that you should consider the benefits of a Kyle's Corner. You would be able to get instant feedback. As it is now, you apparently simply count how many people read one of your posts. You have no way of knowing what those lurkers are thinking when you call people corrupt. Here is the post I mentioned. "Your actions, or inactions, show a lack of guts. Although you rail on continually about how the City violates your civil rights, you do not file any lawsuits. Why don't you file a federal civil rights suit? Check it out; the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees in addition to actual and punitive damages. No issue of the Tort Immunity Act in a federal law suit. There is, of course, one problem. If the court finds that you have filed a frivolous law suit, it will nail you for the City's attorney's fees. Also, the City's attorney is a first-rate lawyer, easily one of the best in the county. Don't let that bother you, however. Filing a law suit would be a good way to get at some of the City's leaders, guys who have done extremely well in the working world. A law suit would give you a Walter Mitty moment: loser sues successful people."
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 20, 2014 16:13:49 GMT -6
Yes, I was criticized by him for using my freedom of speech to talk about the First Amendment violations instead of hiring an attorney and filing legal action against our City. . There you go again Kyle, twisting what someone said. Your actions, or inactions, show a lack of guts. Although you rail on continually about how the City violates your civil rights, you do not file any lawsuits. Is that not you criticizing me for exercising my Fist Amendment rights instead of filing a lawsuit? How did I twist what you said? Do you really think that just because you say that I could not only make tax payers have to pay for two sets of attorneys, but I could also make them have to pay for punitive damages, that is what I should think would be best? Would it be an amount that just a property tax increase would be enough to pay for it, or would they also need to further cut services to citizens, like the number of officer they can afford to have on the street? I suppose that creating additional expenses for tax payers could be a way to get voters' attention to ask for better for our community at election time, but I am not interested in doing that. If that makes me gutless, then so be it. Do you think that our courts consider the First Amendment frivolous? Is there something that I missed in it that gives Mayor Lansford the power to decide what subjects that candidates running against him can talk about in City Park? or Is mentioning frivolous just your way of trying to minimize the violation? Why do you think he just didn't allow people to hear what candidates had to say in City Park? Was he afraid that if someone else had good ideas, that he might not be able to win? Did he not understand that the Constitution should provide citizens free speech rights? or Does he think he is above our Constitution? It almost seems as if you are upset that some attorneys aren't profiting off the citizens over this. I did talk about the Constitutional violation directly to the council. I invited them to use their new public forum ordinance to stop me. They exercise it to stop me at three minutes using the time limit clause of the ordinance. If I said anything that was not true they could also stop me using the slander clause, however they let me continue talking after stating what had happened and calling it a Constitutional violation. They did have their legal counsel present; if it weren't an actual Constitutional violation, wouldn't they be able to and want to take action against me for it? Isn't it a very serious claim that I have been making?
|
|
|
Post by job on May 20, 2014 18:57:21 GMT -6
Kyle offered up his understanding of constitutional law, in part, as follows: "Do you really think that just because you say that I could not only make tax payers have to pay for two sets of attorneys, but I could also make them have to pay for punitive damages, that is what I should think would be best? Would it be an amount that just a property tax increase would be enough to pay for it, or would they also need to further cut services to citizens, like the number of officer they can afford to have on the street? I suppose that creating additional expenses for tax payers could be a way to get voters' attention to ask for better for our community at election time, but I am not interested in doing that. If that makes me gutless, then so be it. Do you think that our courts consider the First Amendment frivolous? Is there something that I missed in it that gives Mayor Lansford the power to decide what subjects that candidates running against him can talk about in City Park? or Is mentioning frivolous just your way of trying to minimize the violation?" Kyle, for someone who is constantly trying to convince everyone on this board that you really understand your "constitutional rights," you display an amazing ignorance of constitutional law. Pursuant to Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Laws, you can sue individuals. In other words, the individuals would be liable for the alleged unconstitutional acts. There would be no costs to the City. Yet again, you attempt to twist my words by posing the question: "Do you think that our courts consider the First Amendment frivolous?" It is not the First Amendment that courts find to be frivolous; instead, courts find certain alleged claims to be frivolous.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 20, 2014 19:51:15 GMT -6
Kyle, for someone who is constantly trying to convince everyone on this board that you really understand your "constitutional rights," you display an amazing ignorance of constitutional law. Pursuant to Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Laws, you can sue individuals. In other words, the individuals would be liable for the alleged unconstitutional acts. There would be no costs to the City. Are you seriously trying to make me now think that it was individuals that you were trying to get me to file a lawsuit against? Although you rail on continually about how the City violates your civil rights, you do not file any lawsuits. There is, of course, one problem. If the court finds that you have filed a frivolous law suit, it will nail you for the City's attorney's fees. Also, the City's attorney is a first-rate lawyer, easily one of the best in the county. Why would I have to pay the City's attorneys' fees if it were individuals that you were suggesting that I sue? I think that you should move your comments to the cesspool thread; they qualify as cesspool fill in my opinion. Yet again, you attempt to twist my words by posing the question: "Do you think that our courts consider the First Amendment frivolous?" It is not the First Amendment that courts find to be frivolous; instead, courts find certain alleged claims to be frivolous. Oh, OK. My apologies for twisting your words. Let me be more specific then. Do you think that the courts would consider a certain claim such as mine of an elected official controlling what subjects can be discussed by candidates running against him in City Park at election time as being frivolous? Isn't political speech given even more protection than other forms of speech? Is that really a fair election process if the ones in office get to decide what subjects can be discussed? I would hope that our courts wouldn't consider an unfair election process being frivolous. I believe that it is your right to suggest that it is frivolous, but that just makes it seem to me like you are advocating against free speech.
|
|
|
Post by ~MnM~ on May 20, 2014 23:47:44 GMT -6
Hey CUZ....do ya think that perhaps we should hold another shindig for members...only instead of going to the Broadway, we could all meet up at Carbo's............... I knew that this post was coming, just didn't know when...glad I got to view it.... LOL.............. M
|
|
|
Post by toshiko on May 21, 2014 6:47:42 GMT -6
Wow, Kyle, alot of folks beaching about your comments here, then give you, your very own thread. Too funny.
|
|
|
Post by job on May 21, 2014 9:32:39 GMT -6
Hey CUZ....do ya think that perhaps we should hold another shindig for members...only instead of going to the Broadway, we could all meet up at Carbo's............... I knew that this post was coming, just didn't know when...glad I got to view it.... LOL.............. M From what I have read, Carbo's is in a very dangerous part of town. To coin an expression, I wouldn't have a ghost of a chance in that part of town.
|
|
|
Post by job on May 21, 2014 9:49:22 GMT -6
Kyle demonstrates, yet again, his "knowledge" of constitutional law. "Why would I have to pay the City's attorneys' fees if it were individuals that you were suggesting that I sue?" You must really have contempt for Streator people and their ability to read and understand. I think I can unravel your latest attempt to twist what I have said in various posts. Up until the last couple of posts, you were talking about the City as an entity trampling upon your constitutional rights. At one point, you implied that, because of the Tort Immunity Act, the City could say anything about you with impunity. Remember Kyle: You said: "Have you heard of Illinois Municipal Tort Immunity Law? It allows our City Council and administration to say whatever they want without any repercussions." Trying to help you out, I pointed out that the Tort Immunity Act does not bar federal law suits. I explained that the prevailing party in a federal civil rights suit can recover his/her/its attorneys' fee. Next, you said that you would not want to sue the City because of concerns about the cost to the City and the tax payers. Ever mindful of your concern for Streator people, I then explained that you could sue individuals rather than the City. In such a case, the prevailing party could recover its legal fees and punitive damages. If you lost, you would have to pay. If you won, the individuals would have to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 21, 2014 23:24:57 GMT -6
Up until the last couple of posts, you were talking about the City as an entity trampling upon your constitutional rights. At one point, you implied that, because of the Tort Immunity Act, the City could say anything about you with impunity. Remember Kyle: You said: "Have you heard of Illinois Municipal Tort Immunity Law? It allows our City Council and administration to say whatever they want without any repercussions." Trying to help you out, I pointed out that the Tort Immunity Act does not bar federal law suits. I explained that the prevailing party in a federal civil rights suit can recover his/her/its attorneys' fee. Next, you said that you would not want to sue the City because of concerns about the cost to the City and the tax payers. Ever mindful of your concern for Streator people, I then explained that you could sue individuals rather than the City. In such a case, the prevailing party could recover its legal fees and punitive damages. If you lost, you would have to pay. If you won, the individuals would have to pay. None of that matters to me though because I am not interested in filing any lawsuits. I am perfectly content just talking about what has happened. I think that if you or our City leaders are ashamed to have people talking about what they have done, then maybe they should start doing things differently. Remember, you are the one that is obsessed with legal action and calling me names because instead of feeding some attorneys, I am enjoying my First Amendment rights. That is how all of this got brought up, because I feel that your attacks on me for using and defending my rights is a way of advocating against free speech.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 21, 2014 23:52:24 GMT -6
Wow, Kyle, alot of folks beaching about your comments here, then give you, your very own thread. Too funny. When he and the others do things like this, it just convinces me to keep talking because obviously it is hitting a nerve and making it uncomfortable for them to keep heading us in the same direction. If I were wrong in what I talk about, they would have justification for what our City leaders do. However, as you've probably seen, their club representative on here that is supposedly an attorney, has to resort to calling me names and ridicule me because he doesn't like it that I enjoy my Constitutional rights despite our City leaders desperate attempts to squash them. I never really had a high opinion of attorneys in general, but would expect one to have some intelligent comments and not have to resort to behavior that I remember from grade school. Their tactics are kind of funny. The whole situation would be funny too, if the condition of our city weren't so sad.
|
|
|
Post by job on May 22, 2014 6:13:39 GMT -6
Kyle, for someone who has continually questioned the honesty and integrity of City officials, you seem very sensitive to any ridicule or name calling directed toward you.
|
|