Appeals court rules in favor of city of Santa Cruz in Robert No...

Becky Johnson wrote:

FROM THE DISSENTING JUDGE: "While it's clear under our case law that public officals can retrict speech at public meetings, City Councils can restrict speech at such meetings according to the subject matter, duration and method, it is equally clear that public officials can not restrict the speech according to the viewpoint of the speaker."
see the entire commentary at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinion...

Okay. I'll bite. I read this opinion. It's pretty darn clear they told you go jump off a cliff. As for the partial dissent from "Judge" Tashima, all I can say is he sounds like a bigger retard than you two. Perhaps you should invite him to wear his best bathrobe and join you at your next Sidewalk Sandbox Soireé outside Bunny's.

P.S. Hey Robert, go pick your nose until your head caves in.

You won't be missed.

Martha wrote:

...blah blah blah...[BJ]...
People who don't like Norse should understand that depriving him of his first amendment rights also deprives you of yours. This case is not just about Nazi salutes. It's about allowing robust public debate. People whose speech fails to outrage some people don't need the First Amendment. Others do.

What a clueless crock of garbage BJ (or her friend).

But you are right in the sense that it is not about Nazi salutes per se, rather it is about NorseKahn repeatedly disrupting public meetings that have been arranged to attend to the Public's business, not NorseKahn's tantrum du-jour.

The video of the event shows the mayor attempting to regain order in the chamber with Mike Tomasei being ejected and apparently letting loose some veiled threats ("I'll see you on the street...") and Norse chiming in from the sidelines with a Nazi salute.

He could have been singing I'm a Little Teapot or even reciting the pledge of allegiance -- the result would still be disrupting a Council meeting and cause for being ejected, the Nazi salute was merely an offensive additional touch.

...and we know that the circus starring NorseKahn, BJ and their ilk is all about being offensive to the Council, Police, Legal System and downtown businesses, the reason being that they are merely a group of talentless wastrels, professional victims and publicity gluttons.

Great news on the Court decision.

Here is the YouTube clip of the Norse salute if you want to see his horror movie again.

http://video.google.com/videoplay... #

Dummkopf! Dur Nazi salute is made with dur right arm.

It's interesting that one of the most liberal City Councils on record in Santa Cruz (Krohn and Fitzmourice) was the least tolerant of first amendment rights. No one doubts that Norse is an idiot and counter-productive, but only Krohn and Fitzmourice made it criminal.

Can SC taxpayers sue Norse for $114K?

Norse/Khan is about as useful as a windshield wiper on a goat's **** .

---"I love our court system and I like the fact that people can bring lawsuits and try, when they feel muzzled, to speak truth to power," Krohn said. "But in Robert's case, I feel sorry for him because I've never found him to be effective. Some of his issues are quite good. But if the proof is in the pudding, it's a lot of spoiled pudding."---

Say what, Krohn? Spolied pudding? Mix your metaphors much?

The expression is, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." Once a goofball, always a goofball, Mr. Ex-Mayor.

But on to important things. Hooray for this sane and sensible ruling! Someone finally had the balls to (figuratively) spank that spoiled brat Norse/Kahn on the tookus. He has wasted enough of the city's money and time. So he now says he's set his course for the Supreme Court? That -- in case anyone ever doubted it -- should be proof positive that Norse/Kahn's main objective in this circus is and always has been to put himself in the news and the lawbooks.

He is a tiresome narcissist.

...that was goat's behind!

Martha wrote:

<quoted text>
Many people feel this way and that, in itself, is a good reason not to do it if the point is to persuade. But here we're talking about the First Amendment which is supposed to protect people from arrest for speech that is intemperate and offensive. Would you want the government to say that the First Amemdment does not protect Nazi salutes. If so, what else will the government prohibit because it is offensive? This is a slippery slope.
Also it is obvious that Norse was protesting the Council's overbearing treatment of people it does not agree with. This is a real threat and if allowed to continue would resemble the way Nazis acted in Germany. Even though Germany now bans the Nazi salute, the ban is limited to true salutes and not those used to criticize or mock public officials. Why should we be less tolerant than Germany where those awful events occurred?

I dunno. Why would we call ourselves Martha, when our real name is Becky?

The Lord moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to weave. Or something like that.

These are imponderables, no?

zuzzah wrote:

<quoted text>
...He could have been singing I'm a Little Teapot or even reciting the pledge of allegiance -- the result would still be disrupting a Council meeting and cause for being ejected, the Nazi salute was merely an offensive additional touch...

God, what an image, Zuz! Norse/Kahn singing "I'm a Little Teapot"! I'm sure I will have nightmares now.

I agree that this is not about "speech", but behavior. I've read the court's opinion (you all can, too,on the Ninth Circuit Court's Web site). It is worth noting that the court originally dismissed this appeal, supporting the actions of the Council, but later remanded and requested documentation of the -- um -- fracus. The tapes of N/K's tantrum were his undoing. Here are two pertinent quotes from the opinion:

We have long recognized that First Amendment
rights of expression are more limited during a meeting than in
a public forum, as, for example, a street corner. See White,
900 F.2d at 1425. Thus, we reaffirmed in Kindt what we said
in White, that a council “does not violate the first amendment
when it restricts public speakers to the subject at hand,” and
that a chair of a meeting may stop a speaker “if his speech
becomes irrelevant or repetitious.”

and:

Our law is also clear, however, that discretion is not
unlimited, and that rules may not be enforced in order to sup-
press a particular viewpoint. See White, 900 F.2d at 1426. A
majority of us remanded this case years ago because, on the
basis of the pleadings alone, Norse’s ejection after the salute
may have been on account of a viewpoint that was contrary
to that of the Council. Now, on the basis of the undisputed
factual record of the videotaped proceedings, it is clear that
the salute was in protest of the chair’s enforcing the time limi-
tations and in support of the disruption that had just occurred
in the back of the meeting room. We agree with the district
court that the ejection was not on account of any permissible
expression of a point of view. Norse was protesting the good
faith efforts of the Chair to enforce the Council’s rules, which
we have already determined were valid, in order to maintain
order.
--------

So shaddup, all of you in Beckyland and Norseville, who whine that this is a wide-ranging decision that muzzles free speech. To the contrary, it is meant to enhance the ability of ALL citizens to be heard in public meetings and not be drowned out or otherwise disrupted by those who would usurp that right (bullying, time-hogging gadflies like Norse and his gang, for instance).

I suggest that, at the very least, you all read the opinion before you opine about the death of free speech.

So did any of you miss the fact that his action (the salute) did not disrupt the meeting and they arrested him for it?
None of you find THAT a bit disturbing?
The City Council can have someone arrested because they don't like something a spectator did?
Regardless of what I think of Norse, I think the Sh*tty Council was a bit overly sensitive on this.

By the way, the City pays Barisone the same amount whether anyone sues them or not. I think he's one of the most overpaid people in this city. He helps the Sh*tty Council pass laws that are so poorly written that they are unenforceable.

Right to an opinion wrote:

So did any of you miss the fact that his action (the salute) did not disrupt the meeting and they arrested him for it?
None of you find THAT a bit disturbing?
The City Council can have someone arrested because they don't like something a spectator did?
Regardless of what I think of Norse, I think the Sh*tty Council was a bit overly sensitive on this.

I don't find it disturbing at all. I'm quite satisfied to see Norse arrested for anything. Anything at all. For example, he doesn't clip his toenails often enough, and then he traipses around in flip flops. He should be arrested for that. I hope that soon the 9th Circuit will take this up and perhaps mete out true justice in the form of say, 70 lashes on his soft behind, one for each of his digits.

Of course I'm counting both his hands and his feet. How do you think I came up with 70? It's not like he has 70 toenails. Duh.

Coulrophobia wrote:

<quoted text>
God, what an image, Zuz! Norse/Kahn singing "I'm a Little Teapot"! I'm sure I will have nightmares now.

I agree that this is not about "speech", but behavior. I've read the court's opinion (you all can, too,on the Ninth Circuit Court's Web site). It is worth noting that the court originally dismissed this appeal, supporting the actions of the Council, but later remanded and requested documentation of the -- um -- fracus. The tapes of N/K's tantrum were his undoing. Here are two pertinent quotes from the opinion:

We have long recognized that First Amendment
rights of expression are more limited during a meeting than in
a public forum, as, for example, a street corner. See White,
900 F.2d at 1425. Thus, we reaffirmed in Kindt what we said
in White, that a council “does not violate the first amendment
when it restricts public speakers to the subject at hand,” and
that a chair of a meeting may stop a speaker “if his speech
becomes irrelevant or repetitious.”

and:

Our law is also clear, however, that discretion is not
unlimited, and that rules may not be enforced in order to sup-
press a particular viewpoint. See White, 900 F.2d at 1426. A
majority of us remanded this case years ago because, on the
basis of the pleadings alone, Norse’s ejection after the salute
may have been on account of a viewpoint that was contrary
to that of the Council. Now, on the basis of the undisputed
factual record of the videotaped proceedings, it is clear that
the salute was in protest of the chair’s enforcing the time limi-
tations and in support of the disruption that had just occurred
in the back of the meeting room. We agree with the district
court that the ejection was not on account of any permissible
expression of a point of view. Norse was protesting the good
faith efforts of the Chair to enforce the Council’s rules, which
we have already determined were valid, in order to maintain
order.
--------

So shaddup, all of you in Beckyland and Norseville, who whine that this is a wide-ranging decision that muzzles free speech. To the contrary, it is meant to enhance the ability of ALL citizens to be heard in public meetings and not be drowned out or otherwise disrupted by those who would usurp that right (bullying, time-hogging gadflies like Norse and his gang, for instance).
I suggest that, at the very least, you all read the opinion before you opine about the death of free speech.

Excellent!

Right to an opinion wrote:

By the way, the City pays Barisone the same amount whether anyone sues them or not. I think he's one of the most overpaid people in this city. He helps the Sh*tty Council pass laws that are so poorly written that they are unenforceable.

It seems to me they enforced this one just fine.

As for being overpaid, don't forget, Norse apparently gets a trust fund check just for being himself. On the other hand, Barisone has reported for work at least once in the past 40 years. That's at least one more time than our friend from Carmel.

I wouldn't be bringing up the "overpaid" argument with Norse in the vicinity.

Martha wrote:

The reporter failed to point out that this decision was not unanimous. The dissenting judge said that Norse had not disrupted the 2002 meeting and there was evidence that he was discriminated against because of his views...

You are either spinning, or you didn't read the opinion. Tashima's rambling and rather shrill opinion was *partially* concurring, and *partially* dissenting. The kernal of his dissent seems to be what he said the other judges *inferred* about N/K's behavior. The schism I see in the two sides of the court opinion is a disagreement over whether The Brat's action was -- for the sake of the appeal -- speech or behavior. The majority goes with disruptive behavior. Tashima goes with "silent speech."

So I put it to you, BeckyMartha...what is the "speech" that The Brat was expressing in the 2002 meeting, given that one of his apostles had just exceeded her time at the podium and refused to leave it when asked?(Before you answer, please read the court's cite about the lawfulness of "enforcing reasonable rules for the orderly conduct of meetings".) What was his intention in executing a Nazi salute? Could it be that he was commenting on the Council's telling his acolyte to stop? Could it be that he was cheering on his homies, who were acting up in the back of the room?

Right to an opinion wrote:

So did any of you miss the fact that his action (the salute) did not disrupt the meeting and they arrested him for it?
None of you find THAT a bit disturbing?
The City Council can have someone arrested because they don't like something a spectator did?
Regardless of what I think of Norse, I think the Sh*tty Council was a bit overly sensitive on this.

Well, y'see BJ, NorseKahn DID disrupt the meeting; his repulsive salute was noticed by councilmember Tim Fitzmaurice who brought it to Mayor Krohn's attention.

When Krohn asked NorseKahn to leave and was met with a refusal and an argument, the meeting was adjourned until the offending party could be removed since it is impossible to conduct a meeting with an idiot raving in the audience.

NorseKahn was NOT arrested for what he did until he refused to leave the chambers, but you know that was his intention all along.

So it appears you missed the fact that the Council are seated because they are elected to be there and there is no obligation on their part to allow an idiot like NorseKahn to hijack a meeting.