Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

The Constitution and the First Amendment in Lincolnton


The Law in Lincolnton

Supreme Law (US Constitution) states “Congress (of which means anyone else as well) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,”

7 Dec. 2017 (7 Dec. 1941 another country sought to destroy our Country, our Constitution) but on this date the Lincolnton City Council in NC put an axe to the Constitution by making an Ordinance of a thought (offend), making this a crime. Of which is only giving the City Police an impossible job, a bearer in enforcing an unConstitutional Ordinance that makes them look bad and have to go against their conscience or lose their job. So what will be the Council’s next step?

So if we are not going to follow and obey the Constitution than we are only ripe for anyone doing whatever is right in their own eyes. And in so doing it is, make it up as you go and no one is safe. Some has said “let the court(s) decide on this”. Are we all children that we cannot understand the Constitution and must have someone else to tell us what we can or cannot do? Courts or judges make one decision, only for another to say and do something else many times, when it is clear what the answer is.

Supreme Court has stated that 1st Amendment Free Speech, often achieves its purpose precisely when it is upsetting to people. (Cohen v. Calif. 403 U.S. 15, 21 1971). Free Speech “may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger” Terminiello v. City of Chicago 337 U.S. 1,3 1949

Fred Jarrett stated in his “response to editorial” untrue, non-fact statements. Several councilmen that I have spoken to have not spoken to “most disruptive patrons” that Mr. Jarrett states as well as according to the paper these are not reasonable persons of ordinary sensibilities. He quotes strong words that does not address this situation, of: public safety, and safety of the goers threatened. Infringe – To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; To destroy or hinder Webster 1948. He also quotes the ACLU as to their definition of the 1st Amendment. For his information no one answers to the ACLU and are not part of our Court system. Amazing, the twisting of words to his advantage, just as others are and have been doing to the 2nd Amendment as well.

I was at this event for a while and saw nothing that was disruptive and especially dangerous being done by those there. From my property of more than 3 blocks away, I have heard, from even inside of my building, the music from these events. For anyone to disrupt this very loud volume, it sure would have to be more than someone’s natural voice to do so. I am also curious to know, how much taxpayers’ money is being used to sponsor these events? Is the City’s cost of cleanup etc. in manpower etc. being covered by the event sponsor(s)? So if this is a city sponsored event, than it is a public event, and not a private, fee charged event, than the Constitution must be followed and not special made up rules for those within of a private or personal circle. This is the LAW. What is not protected speech, as has been proven and clearly understood is when someone hates someone to cause harm as in shouting “FIRE” in a crowded room.

The city used a phase to pass this ordinance, “that no other city that has this type of ordinance has not been sued”. Is this how we regulate what we do? Or get our understanding to the Constitution? Let us be adult enough, that we do not start passing laws, as we have already done, on thought crimes. If someone is personally offended, then this is what our courts are for, if we cannot work it out ourselves. This person(s) can put their own money in taking someone to court if they are offended. But do not use the arm of the police and public money in a court system costing taxpayers more money. We in Lincolnton, Lincoln County have Much larger crime problems that are going on and tying up our court system than, mental thought crimes. Join me to fight the drugs or the violence, or the alcohol, or school safety issues, in caring about our neighbor.

Alan Hoyle

Lincolnton, NC

Marine, candidate for Sheriff

4 Comments on The Constitution and the First Amendment in Lincolnton

  1. Sorry been there and ,I have a ight to not be insulted and harrassing by idiots screaming at me with a bull horn that if I don’t listen to them I am going to hell. Especially when I am there to hear my first amendment right to hear uninterrupted music and speeches I want to hear. They should have their own events which no one will attend which is why they invade everybody’s else’s events. Get rid of them they are violating my constitutional rights to not hear them

    • Looking beyond the fact the author can hear the music three blocks away inside a building…looking beyond the considerations of whether this was a private event or subsidized with Public money…an interesting point is skirted.

      Hearing is a sense…speaking is not. You can communicate by writing (Freedom of the Press), sign language, Braille, and even by blinking your eyes in Morse Code…all of which do not require the sense of Hearing OR speaking.

      As a society and a civilization using good etiquette…if more respect and emphasis was placed on the sense of Hearing than the blanket acquiescence to gibbering idiots (Freedom of Speech)…a certain amount of Harmony might result. “Respect” and “Emphasis” not being legally enforceable…they are just common decency.

      The Freedom of Speech can be abused (howling maniacs)…it can be cultivated (civilized debate)…or it can be left idle (meek and timid)…there is a reason the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”; it is so the Government won’t have the legal power to tell you to shut up. That being said, if someone’s use of the Freedom of Speech abuses another’s sense of Hearing…that is probably what is occurring…abuse…or at the very least “bad form”.

      A Camaro filled with marijuana smoking rodeo rough stock riding teenagers cruising though a grocery store parking lot blaring AC/DC from open windows to shocked shoppers in the mid-1980’s was most likely “bad form”. I don’t know anyone like that. (chagrin)

  2. “Some has said “let the court(s) decide on this”.”

    The author is correct, this is not up to the courts to give their OPINION about.

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.