Del. Pat McDonough has threated to pursue legal action and introduce legislation in Annapolis if the Bel Air Independence Day Committee fails to remove or revise rules he claims prohibit free speech during the annual July 4th parade.
A furious letter writing campaign and bitter back-and-forth between Del. McDonough’s supporters and members of the Independence Day Committee ensued after Parade Chairman Mike Blum and McDonough disagreed over whether the signs the delegate carried with him on the Bel Air parade route violated the terms of a contract for the event.
Although Del. McDonough is now calling the incident a “disagreement” and backing away from using the word “confrontation,” earlier versions of the story included descriptions of “obscene disrespect” and “yanking signs from children.”
Evidence may exist in the form of a video filmed during the parade, but Del. McDonough is unsure of whether he will release the footage to the public.
“We are reluctant to release the video tape at this time because of some legal issues that are in process,” McDonough wrote in an email.
Here is how Del. McDonough described the event:
“I would also point out that the meeting between Mike Blum and myself was not a confrontation. My vehicle had already stopped when Mike approached and demanded I put the signs away, my response” I have had these signs for six years in this parade”. Mike said “its the rule and you signed the contract,” I said, “there’s a bigger rule called the Constitution and free speech” at which point he said, “we will deal with this on Monday.” What ever that means? Mike then quickly departed and headed for Delegate Impallaria’s group,” McDonough wrote.
“I do not feel that was a confrontation, but merely a disagreement,” he added.
Composed after two days of breathless letter-writing, radio appearance and email blasts, Del. McDonough said he is now focusing his attention on one specific area.
“There is only one issue I am addressing, the current rule that Prohibits Free Speech,” he wrote.
Here is the plan of attack McDonough has laid out:
“A group of concerned citizens will be sending a letter to the Parade committee requesting they review and change the rule. We will offer suggestions. Should the committee reject our request the only option remaining will be legal action seeking judicial review. I will be exploring legislation regarding the Constitution and Article 40 of the Maryland State Constitution prohibiting overly restrictive contract language related to events directly or indirectly subsidized by public funds,” he wrote.
In other words, if the Bel Air Independence Day Committee reviews and revises its rules regarding electioneering, campaign signage, and what may and may not be displayed during the parade, Del. McDonough will call off the angry mob – the angry mob he was largely responsible for inciting, although McDonough seems to be distancing himself from some of the statements made by the mob as well.
“The rule is the only real issue. All of the other flack is a distraction and simply people expressing their opinions,” McDonough wrote.
Let me get this. Del. McDonough believes the solution to “oppressive” parade rules is govt. regulation? That doesn’t sound very republican of him.
Right, This is the same guy who talks about the constitution and wants the govt to tell private companies how much to pay their executives and socialize private industry…These Baltimore County carpet baggers will do anything for attention…they get nothing done in Annapolis but pull stunts for this type of publicity…The Bel Air parade as had a great tradition over the years and Harford politicians have not had any problem following the rules until these glad-flies from Baltimore Co showed up…wonder what McDonough would think if we handed out signs that said “CarpetBagger go Home”……
Somebody should file an ethics complaint against Delegate McDonough. A Delegate cannot use their legislative office in order to spur action for personal gain. This includes the threat of legislation. Of course, Delegate Barbara Robinson did the same thing and nothing happened to her.
Maybe attempting to gain freedom of speech in the parade and procuring the ability to carry a sign that says “Support the Constitution” is personal gain, but in a larger sense it is a “gain” for all of us as it helps safeguard the freedoms endowed to us by the Creator.
The Founding Fathers real purpose in drafting the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. If we as citizens cherish freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.
We need more elected officials who have the courage to stand up and say “Support the Constitution”. I applaud Delegate McDonough’s effort to gain the ability to make that statement in any public forum.
Pat McDonough is a joke. Leave it to him to come to a 4th of July parade and stir up more political crap. It seems he will use any event as an excuse to come and make a fool of himself, then when he gets called out on it, he starts whining and threatens legal action. It’s a predictable pattern of his, rinse, repeat. What exactly has he done for Baltimore and Harford County, except be the crybaby of the Republican party?
Why not just ban all politicians from the parade? I can’t image you’d get any complaints from the kids who look forward to attending and celebrating the day. Pat McDonough is just trying to garner some attention for an otherwise ineffective political career. Stop, Pat. Let the little kids enjoy the parade and follow the rules you agreed to.
I sincerely hope that voters and tax payers alike take note of Del. McDonough’s actions. He has blown this issue way out of proportion and his now threat of legal action just goes to show his distorted view on what our county needs or wants. I urge him to regain focus and use his time remaining as a Delegate to do something useful. I have yet to see him do anything lately but stir emotions. Unfortunately the emotions he is stirring aren’t beneficial for anyone. His own website quotes him as the “Peoples Delegate”. Oh Yay- Legislation regarding Fourth of July Parades?!? What a joke!
! (Exclamation) – Is Freedom of Speech and Expression an important and fundamental right that should be championed by a public official?
How should a public official pursue a remedy to an restriction by one party’s of another’s constitutionally guaranteed right other than through our the courts or the legislature?
This is more of McDonough wasting his time as an elected official on idiocy. He comes off again and again as a child prone to temper tantrums and drama. No one votes you into the state legislature so that you can change the rules of a parade that isn’t even in your district. It goes back much further than this, which is only the most recent reminder of why McDonough needs to be forced to fine real work, and leave the people’s business to other people.
Brian Goodman
Esteemed Editor of the Dagger,
What is your problem? Concerned citizens who feel strongly about an issue are now characterized as an “Angry Mob” Wow, talk about a nasty put down! Are you accusing all of the people blogging on the “parade Issue” as an “Angry Mob” or just the ones who support the CONSTITUTIONAL FREE SPEECH. Here we go again, the Parade rules ban free expression and you accuse citizens who express their opinion of being an angry mob. Furthermore, I did not incite anyone, I simply informed them. You apparently are interested in inciting people by insulting them with the “ANGRY MOB” Label. I will continue to concentrate on obeying the process and finding a fair solution, you can keep stirring the pot. Maybe as a journalist you may want to be more objective and perhaps research Case Law on this issue and produce a useful commentary.
Delegate McDonough
Mr. McDonough:
Free speech does not just extend to those who speak English. As you are so quick to point out, this is a free country, where people should be free to speak whichever language they so chose. It is precisely the same protection that allows you to post speeches and letters rife with grammatical errors, hardly proper English my dear sir.
So while you complain about your free speech being violated, think of how many others’ free speech you seek to violate with your meaningless drivel about ‘Speaking English.’ Note the irony.
Good day sir, and do not be surprised when you find yourself on the losing side come election day.
Don’t worry Brian,,,if that is not the pot calling the kettle black…what a hustler this guy is….he’s the district 7 al sharpton bad hair and all…
Banastre – The Speak English issue is about the rule of law, education, business and government administration and not about restricting anyone’s right to speak any language they choose.
And once again there are already 28 States that have English as their “Official Language”.
I sense yo have an another point you are trying to make that has little to do with language matters. Why don’t you say what you really mean?
Va bene,
Joe
Mr. McDonough,
Since you are participating in this dialogue, I have a question:
Did you sign the agreement knowing that you had no intent of obeying it? If so, why?
I’m sure, as a politician, you know there are more constructive, less controversial ways of accomplishing a goal. Through reading the comments on the last couple of posts, it sounds as though the parade committee would have been open to revising the rules.
Why didn’t you approach them prior to the actual parade and voice your concerns? Or did you?
Just curious.
Rest assured, Mr Caruso that I say precisely what I mean. The notion that the Speak English campaign is about the rule of law is utterly ridiculous. When I read government publications, they are in English. Floor debate in the Maryland House of Delegates occurs in English, and the floor proceedings are likewise, printed in English. Street signs are printed in English. When I call my local fire department, they answer the phone in English. Classes at the local high school are taught in English.
Mandating that private citizens speak English in their private correspondence, or that businesses provide services only in English is assuredly an infringement on free speech, not to mention a tyrannical government ploy to mandate the private behavior of its citizens.
With all the problems facing Harford County and the country right now, I can’t believe Pat McDonough is so furious about a town parade committee that wouldn’t allow him to carry his “Speak English” signs for one day out of the year.
With all due respect Delegate, perhaps you should stop carrying “Speak English” signs and start carrying “Use Your Brain” signs. Maybe it will rub off on you.
Banastre – It is disingenuous to state that anyone is as you say “Mandating that private citizens speak English in their private correspondence, or that businesses provide services only in English is assuredly an infringement on free speech,”
You sir are just making stuff up now and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Is it possible for you to have an honest debate?
Va bene,
Joe
Ryan – Below are the rules such as they are and McDonough et al were in compliance, however the rules are poorly constructed and likely unenforceable as written.
And, if the sign that McDonough carried is the same as the one he used in the last five or so parades why would he need any permission?
d. No participant will be permitted to display material advertising any candidacy for public office, nor shall there be any campaigning along the parade route. THIS RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.
SIGNAGE RULES; HEIGHT AND WIDTH RULES
a. Signs or banners are NOT required for entrants in the parade but are encouraged in that they help spectators identify the entrant.
b. Signs or banners may carry the name of the unit, sponsor, patriotic statement or title, preferably in keeping with the theme of the parade.
c. Units and marchers may not display signs or banners which promote a cause or could be considered by the average person to be picket signs or banners.
d. Height Restriction: no unit may be higher than 12 feet from the pavement.
e. Width Restriction: All units must be able to fit inside one standard traffic lane (since at the end of the S-curve on Kenmore Street, that’s the width of the route!).
Delgate with all due respect you have done a great deal of inciting! Your original letter, multiple radio appearences the next day and multiple e-mail blasts to various organizations is indeed inciting. This all to bring down your wrath on a group of civic volunteers. Now that a journalist is excerciseing their 1st ammendment rights to call it like they see it you want to opress that speech. Their adjective would pass the libel and slander bar by a mile in this case. As offended as you may be it is an objective and accurate characterization in this case. You have more important things to worry about such as how you are going to earn back mine and the many votes of your district whom you lost from last election!
Mr. Caruso, you said that the ‘Speak English’ Campaign is about the rule of law. I pointed out that, without question, English is already the language of state business. So if public business is already conducted in English, that leaves only private business for Mr. McDonough to seek to influence.
This has nothing to do with the public sphere. It has everything to do with McDonough’s fear of those who are different than he is. I think we can all agree on that.
Delegate McDonough …
Did you read, agree to and sign a contract regarding participation in the parade?If your answer is ‘yes’ why did you choose to not abide by what you agreed to? The ‘rules’ have been in place for many years and not once has our county/town of Bel Air been put through such nonsense and uproar which has been caused solely due to ‘your’ disregard for rules of participation.
I honestly think it is disgraceful to take to the air and print and threaten to sue a group of volunteers and in particular denigrate Michael Blum who has been volunteering in this county for untold years and in this case was doing nothing but abiding by the rules.
It is beyond me why you participated at all knowing you were violating agreed upon rules. If you had a beef with the committee’s rules you should have tried to iron out you differences before hand.
Banastre – Now you’re talking when you say –
“This has nothing to do with the public sphere. It has everything to do with McDonough’s fear of those who are different than he is. I think we can all agree on that.”
You sir are the one making this about ethnicity and race, not McDonough. How terribly dishonest and shameful of you!
How dare you impugn the integrity of those folks that think that citizens should have basic English speaking skills and eschew the multi-cultural clarion call for a polyglot nation.
Arrivederla,
Joe
Delegate McDonough
In post #10 you write …”I will continue to concentrate on obeying the process and finding a fair solution”.
With all due respect if you had concentrated on ‘obeying the process and finding a fair solution’ BEFORE you signed an agreement which you broke we all wouldn’t have to be reading about this nonsense.
I wish you would just admit ‘you’ are the one at fault here and let it go.
Ciao
Citizens of this country should have the right to speak Pig Latin if they so desire. Free speech has no qualifier, nor does it need one. Pretending to protect free speech, but only if that speech occurs in English, tears at the very fabric of the principles this nation was founded on.
Delegate Pat McDonough
Esteemed Representative of Legislative District 7,
In your own words:
“The reaction from the crowd watching the parade was vitriolic, including shouts of “Sign Nazis or Communists” referring to the sign police.”
If not angry and not a mob, then what would you call it? A vitriolic crowd?
And if you consider “angry mob” an unfair way to characterize the mad group of unified people, how do you think the Bel Air Independence Day Parade group feels about being called “Nazis?”
This entire episode should serve as a case study for the misuse, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding of free speech, the 1st Amendment, and Constitutional rights.
On the plus side, at least I typed my story in English.
Oh dear Banastre – There you go again in your statement –
“Citizens of this country should have the right to speak Pig Latin if they so desire. Free speech has no qualifier, nor does it need one. Pretending to protect free speech, but only if that speech occurs in English, tears at the very fabric of the principles this nation was founded on.”
While I can’t speak for Del. McDonough, I assume he would join me and the vast majority of Americans in continuing to support the right of folks that choose to express their opinions in “Pig Latin” to be able to do so.
Pig Latin Speakers should have no fear!
Va,
Joe
I am not sure where I was going again in my statement, aside from making a lucid point, something you don’t seem terribly familar with.
Clearly Mr. McDonough would not support the right of folks to speak Pig Latin. Otherwise, why would he harp so long and so loud on speaking English!
Pat McDonough is starting to look like he’s swinging wild!! Punching everything in sight, even his own shadow…
Banastre you old Tory you – No one is prohibiting anyone from speaking their favored language.
Heck, Virginia has English as its Official Language and I was in a bodega there recently and they were speaking a language other than English (I don’t think it was Pig Latin though).
Let me ask you a question – What would be wrong with having basic English proficiency as a condition of citizenship since it is important to have an informed electorate and populous that can communicate?
Gis revido,
Joe
I hope Delegate McDonough also realizes what a victory in this fight will mean. Sure he’ll be able to wave his “Speak English” sign, something a lot of folks including myself agree with. But it will also mean that the Fabulous Rainbow Warrior’s Council will be able to get into the parade and wave around any sign they want, even one declaring that “God Loves Gays More” or “Suzie’s Two Dads Always Love a Parade”…
See, Freedom of speech means a freedom to all speech, not just that which 90%, 80% or 40% of the population agree with, but one in which just one person wants to promote.
Then you need to look at the length of the parade. You won’t be able to deny anyone entrance into the parade, whether it is an elected official, or the local chapter of the National Man Boy Love Association. Does Bel Air and Harford County want the Klu Klux Klan to march in the 4th of July Parade? Or what about the group that goes around and protests at the funerals for soldiers? Does Delegate McDonough support their right to protest a memorial service for someone who died defending the freedoms of speech? That is the can of worms he is opening up and I just hope he realizes it.
Banastre has taken the discussion to a ridiculous extreme, thus ending any useful or informative debate. Congratulations.
To the contray, Mr. Dirt, Mr. McDonough is the one taking this debate to ridiculous extremes. He deserves your congratulations.
Banastre – You missed my question! Here it is once again.
Let me ask you a question – What would be wrong with having basic English proficiency as a condition of citizenship since it is important to have an informed electorate and populous that can communicate?
Gis revido,
Joe
Since having an ‘informed electorate’ and a ‘populous that can communciate’ is so important, why not mandate those things as conditions of citizenship, instead of English? Since having a basic proficiency in English in no way, shape, or form guarantees either of the above.
Of course, there is no requirement that one communicate, or vote, so why would would require a potential citizen to have the ability to do those things. Would children not then be considered citizens?
Delegate McDonough: Your ridiculous post #10 to the editor of the Dagger has just proven to everyone that you talk out of both sides of your mouth. If anyone doubted it before now, you have cemented it forever, in writing, no less. You are a classic example of someone who has a double standard–it’s ok if I do it and not ok if you do it. Go plan your next sign.
Banastre – You are the master of the scatological.
Language is the glue of a nation. Countries that are multilingual have great difficulty with important social, security and governmental matters, not to mention the horrendous cost of administering more than one language.
In fact 84% of Americans, according to Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in May 2009, believe that English should be the Nation’s Official Language. And now that you know this information I’m certain you will join me and the vast majority of Americans in supporting S.991, the National Language Act of 2009.
Va bene,
Joe
I agree with #6. Then we would not have all the people boo’ing Martin O’Malley.
All Pat McDonough is going to do is threaten litigation and ruin the parade for everyone. Pat, if you don’t like the terms of the contract for the parade, participate in the ones that you do agree with. Or stand along the parade route with your signs. Some of us like the non political, non controversial parade. Let’s come together on one day and just celebrate our independence.
To Question – Great post. I know the Dundalk parade in the past refused to let a satanic group participate in the parade. AS I see it, it was within their rights to do so.
You are right, open the can of worms and brace yourself for the ramifications. What politicians always seem to forget, is they legislate and there are many unintended consequesces to their actions.
Just a quick comment on the “speak english” argument and the informed electorate discussion. The voting rights act of 1975 requires that all states supply bilingual ballots and oral assistance for Citizens who speak Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Native American and Inuit Languages.
Government teacher- While the Voting Rights Act of 1975 may provide assistance in a number of languages it does not help non-English speakers understand candidate positions on issues, bills and referendums, etc…
So how does the Voting Rights Act of 1975 inform the electorate?
Va bene,
Joe
In terms of informing the electorate, here is just one example: during this last election cycle there were real-time translations of the debates in spanish, online.
I think you give existing traditional non-english language media very little credit and might also need to drag your argument into the 21st century where the speed at which we are able to access a myriad of information is not limited to solely english language sources.
First of all, a contract that violates the constitution is not a valid contract. Secondly, the Committee that runs the parade is a private group, doing a wonderful job year in and year out, but the parade is a public event supported in numerous ways by the community. Del. McDonough is arguing for our rights as Americans, I can not believe the number of people who do not see how important the fight is. As someone who has been incarcerated for exercising my right to free speech, I say Thank you Delegate,Fight the Good Fight!
Dear Meg –
It is wholly impractical to translate speeches, debates, bills, referendums, and all manner of government documents into the plethora of languages people speak in our country.
Great there was a similcast of some debates; how does that event address the problem?
What is wrong with supporting S.991, the National Language Act of 2009?
Buenas tardes,
Joe
A bunch of sheep. The bulk of these people don’t understand that the man is just trying to protect a right under the 1st Amendment. If you are quick to condemn you’ll be just as quick to give up your rights a little at a time. The liberal left has been chipping away at the 2nd Amendment for years and now the 1st Amendment is being infringed upon in good ole Bel Air. I support Pat in his quest, it’s not just his right he is protecting but all of ours. I’m not a fan of rap music but I respect the rights of the performers that put the product out there just as I respect the right of a patriot marching in a patriotic parade making a point.
Why Brian Goodman would define people who are passionate about an issue as being an “angry Mob” is a mystery to me. I guess people who attend a tea party like the 500 people who were in downtown Bel Air on July 4th, in Brian’s mind, would be a mob. The citizens who were angry about closing the Fallston Library who stood up for their rights and got their library re-opened, was that through mob actions? Because a few individuals were so upset about Mr. Blum’s antics and got a little carried away does not mean that all the people there were a mob. The only action that Delegate Impallaria and Del. McDonough did was to stand tall for free speech. Apparently, their fellow citizens agreed with them and made clear their approval. The only person that incited anybody was Mr. Blum who decided to pull this stunt right in the middle of the parade. I think the petty political attacks are coming from people with a hidden agenda. These delegates, unlike many pansy politicians we have today, are courageous enough to fight for what they believe. Free speech is not petty. In the end, the delegates will be proven right because the Constitution, free speech, and the truth always triumphs.
Delegate Impallaria and Del. McDonough may think they are fighting for freedom of speech (as do many of the other bloggers) but I believe they truely do not understand the definition of free speech. I personally believe in and am willing to fight for all of the rights granted to us constitutionally, but I don’t believe people should be able to manipulate the definitions of these rights to further their agenda or get their name in the press.
Dear The Communicator –
How did the politico twins Impallaria and McDonough “manipulate the definitions of these rights to further their agenda or get their name in the press”?
I’m a bit confused by your post, but let’s see if I can get the gist of what you mean. In the glorious world of The Communicator freedom of expression is narrowly construed and limited to appropriate times and places and if the majority, minority or a nabob decides it’s inconvenient for free speech at say an Independence Day Parade in Bel Air, MD then that is how it is to be!
Gracias Amigo
Joe
Pat your great, and I love what you stand for. But I dont like seeing political adds during a parade. Its bad enough that its filled with used car dealers and Junk wagons. I want to forget about political crud for one day and just have fun with my kids. Pat you should have a tea party…and make your own parade.
Keep fighting the good fight but on this occasion Id have to say enough already. Spend your time doing something else please…After all Im paying for it
Joe in response to #33 it is unconstitutional. They used to do this in the south to keep people from voting!
Joe,
I think I’ve explained it before but one more time for you. A private organization applies for and is granted a permit to hold a parade. They get to set the rules for the parade. If you get a permit for a parade and you don’t want people carrying certain signs, wearing ties or wearing hoods, it is within your rights to not have them in your parade. However, if these same people wish to stand along the parade route with signs, ties and hoods, then that would certainly be allowed.
No different than the organization that held the tea party. They applied for and were granted a permit. If someone wanted to get up and speak at their function who did not convey the message the party wanted communicated they could stop the person from participating. The fact that is is a parade vs a gathering is not relovent.
Cdev – Unconstitutional you say?
It is already a requirement that a person seeking naturalized citizenship be able to read, write and speak basic English.
http://www.uscis.gov
Ciao
Joe
The Great Communicator – You mean these rules –
“d. No participant will be permitted to display material advertising any candidacy for public office, nor shall there be any campaigning along the parade route. THIS RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.
SIGNAGE RULES; HEIGHT AND WIDTH RULES
a. Signs or banners are NOT required for entrants in the parade but are encouraged in that they help spectators identify the entrant.
b. Signs or banners may carry the name of the unit, sponsor, patriotic statement or title, preferably in keeping with the theme of the parade.
c. Units and marchers may not display signs or banners which promote a cause or could be considered by the average person to be picket signs or banners.”
http://www.belairjuly4.org/innerpages/paraderules.html
While these rules are poorly written and likely unenforceable McDonough and Impallaria were in compliance.
Ciao bella,
Joe
Communicator
The Freedom of speech is intended to protect your right to express your point of view to bring about change on an issue or to sway others to suppport your cause. One man’s manipulation is anothers interpretation.
I understand freedom of speech. I also understand there are laws that keep people from infringing on my rights, even if they think it is freedom of speech.
Joe, if you applied for permits, were granted the permit and hosted the parade and I want to participate in your parade or gathering and hold signs supporting pedophilia, would that be ok with you? Or maybe communism, gay rights, the death penalty, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc. after I signed a contract agreeing not to display controversial or political signs? I bet you would be pissed. I would.
But I would not want to do anything to infringe your rights (no matter how offensive I found your message) if you stood outside my function, gathering, or along the parade route displaying those same signs.
Think about it, what gives you the right to do whatever you want at my function or parade? That is not free speech. That is infringing upon my rights or in this case the organization hosting the parade.
Everyone is focused on the participants in the parade’s rights to free speech. I ask you, do the people holding the parade have no rights or say as to what goes into their parade?
If signs stating Support the Constitution and Cut Taxes “promote a cause or could be considered by the average person to be picket signs or banners,” then wouldn’t signs on some Teacher of the Year’s car stating Support your Teachers or Education is Good, or on a police car stating Support Law Enforcement be violations also?
How about Don’t Do Drugs, Join Your Local Volunteer Fire Department, Stop Domestic Violence, or Call Miss Utility Before You Dig?
Dear Communicator –
I glad we’ve settled this debate! Now all you need to do is apologize to Messrs. Impallaria and McDonough and we can call it even.
Many thanks and kindest regards,
Joe
P.S. I’m so pleased we’ve had this time together.
Joe,
You don’t answer my question….what about the rights of the people or organization hosting the parade?
Could I have these signs in your parade?
Messrs. Impallaria and McDonough did not keep their word and broke the contract. Not only did they break the contract but argued the validity of the contract the day of the parade? Isn’t that kind of like asking for a different strike zone as you step into the batters box?
Communicator,
They do not have a right to say what goes into the, not their, parade. They have an obligation to follow the rules set out for the parade. What can be argued is the interpretation of these rule or the rules validity all together.
Joe – they are hosting the parade, it is their parage. They hold the permits.
Again I ask you, what about the rights of the people or organization hosting the parade? Do they hane no rights?
Could I have these signs in your parade?
In ‘my’ parade they could. If it cannot get you arrested on the street corner, it should be allowed.
Communicator –
You own a parade? What kind of parade do you have? What does your parade commemorate or celebrate? How does one become a parade owner? Is your parade publicly funded, uses public resources and on a public street?
Could you post The Communicator Parade Rules and Regulations so we can review them?
Ciao,
Joe
P.S. Can I be in your parade with a patriotic sign?
You may get booed and driven out of town, but that’s the chance you take.
comment 64 was intended to follow comment 62 and was not a response to comment 63.
respectfully submittted, joe of #62 and 64 but not of 63
Joe it is not that I or anyone else owns the parade but I or they hold the permit to the parade.
Why did Messrs. Impallaria and McDonough and the rest of the participants sign a contract prior to participating in the parade? I will tell you why, because if they did not sign it, they could not be in the parade. They knew that but then decided they did not like the rules they agreed to.
Communicator
Would you allow signs like Del. McDonough’s in a parade if there were no rules against it?
Joe, If there were no rules agreed upon to enter and participate in the parade, then yes the participants could have any sign they like. But if rules are established, agreed to, a contract is signed, then I would expect the ruled to be respected. Remember the contact is two ways, both parties must adhere to the contract. In this circumstance, as chairman, Mr. Blum had responsibilities to fulfill as did the participants in the parade.
Think about this, you enter the parade and agree to the terms of the contract. You would really like to have a controversial sign but you are a man of your word and you fulfill your contractual obligations and leave your sign in the car. Party B ignores the contract and they have controversial signs anyway. You then go to the parade chairman and want him to enforce the contract. Or the chairman takes it upon himself (as he should) and enforces the contract. In order to fulfill his contractual obligations, the chairman must enforce the rules agreed to by all parties. If he did not enforce the rules, trust me people would give him grief for that too.
Communicator, please respond to the question in comment 57. I’d like to see your interpretation of the rules.
Phil, my organization was not holding the parade. I personally see nothing wrong with the signs you list, but it was not my call. I understand it was signs like Speak English, Cut Taxes, etc. that were in question.
My issue is not what Messrs. Impallaria and McDonough were saying or even if they were campaigning. I don’t care. My point is they agreed to not have signs that were not controversial and not to compaign. I guess a good litmus test would be, if you have to ask if it is controversial, then don’t carry the sign.
The question is, did the signs break the rules forbidding ones that “promote a cause or could be considered by the average person to be picket signs or banners,” and I contend that they are no different than those that I listed.
I’m sure that Mr. Blum worked hard on the parade preparation and I commend him for volunteering, but is it wise to rely on the opinion of someone in advertising and marketing as the “average person” to determine what a sign is considered to be?
If not the chairman of the parade then who? I think the participants of the parade should have respected his decision and discussed it afterwards or better yet beforehand.
I do not know of all of the signs but I would think that some of the public (based on the blogs) would consider Speak English and Stop Raising Taxes controversial. I personally do not, especially the Stop Raising Taxes but some people have more of a socialist mentality than others and want more taxes and central governemnt control, so I could see how they would find the sign offensive. But that is an entire different discussion.
Which argues to my point that the rule is too vague, and therefore unenforceable as written.
Communicator even Pat McDonough wants central govt control. He appears to want central govt control over 4th of July parades.
Cdev – Pat McDonough seems to want his First Amendment Rights and he is using existing remedies to resolve the matter and not looking for whatever you mean by “central govt control over 4th of July parades.”
Joe
The most important issue that must be observed is we all must respect the State and US Constitutions in order to uphold freedom of speech in regard to the sign content, and things seized in regards to the attempts of taking away a person’s sign. Anything otherwise is unconstitutional and violates everyone’s protected rights in this country. No rule, law, or personal opinions can trump this fact. Here are the relavent things to consider in this case. The problem with the parade rules is they seem to illegally override the State and US Constitution and should be promptly fixed, preferably in the courts if the parade committee won’t do it on their own in order to comply with the following:
Constitution for the United States of America
Source – http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm#bor-speech
1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
6th Amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
12th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND
Source – http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html
Article 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Article 10. That freedom of speech and debate, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any Court of Judicature.
If a contract is in fact a law of sorts, or that it is lawfully enforceable, the quote from the earliest foundations of law must apply: “An unjust law is no law at all.” Believe it or not the reason for a trial or hearing is first and foremost to determine the applicability and justness of alaw, then to find out if the accused is guilty of that law. Now, that said, the fact that some mortal wrote a phrase into a contract does not make it right, just or enforceable. In our system, if you are int the minority who still believes in our system, no law, contract, or edict can violate the individual rights of the individual. Like it or not, if it’s not obscene or libelous it’s my first6 amendment right to say it, where and when I want. By the same token, I have the right to ignore anyone else using his or her first amendment right.
What is so terrible about someone saying: speak English”? Is ther a new political correctness law? If so, read the above again.
Dave Yensan, do you support the Westboro Baptist Church walking in the parade condeming the sacrifice of U.S. soldiers as being deserved since we allow homosexuality in this country?
I do not agree with the Westboro Baptist Church, but I will sacrifice my time and security in order for their right to say it. The same as I defend the liberties of the people who wave their middle finger at me as I hold me Tea Party Sign, and the same as I will defend the rights of those that choose to deface the American Flag.
If we don’t stand up for our rights, who will?
Let’s just keep the parade and celebration as a tribute to the birth of our nation and our patriotism. NO POLITICS!! The last thing we need is to turn the whole thing into a fiasco of rude signs, gestures and jeers (which apparently is what happens when the politicians start getting involved). Again, I vote NO POLITICS allowed for the 4th of July Parade.
Elsie, they need to re-think their slogan “Patriotism, Then And Now” based on what happened. But there is the issue of violation of free speech here, since no so-called “rule” can ever override the supreme law of the US Constitution that says overwise. I find it difficult that people can’t get that and would rather have the thought police tell you what to think and do.
Aristotle around 350 BC in his book The Politics, said that “Man is by nature a political animal” and the birth of our nation was all about politics too so nothing is wrong with expressing one’s opinion in public. In fact it’s quite American!
Question asked “Dave Yensan, do you support the Westboro Baptist Church walking in the parade condeming the sacrifice of U.S. soldiers as being deserved since we allow homosexuality in this country?”
I love my apples with grapes. I cannot see any connection between politicians carrying signs and the Westboro Baptist Church.
Since you asked however, yes I support the Westboro Baptist Church being able to march in the Bel Air parade. They have their right to say what they want just like I have the right to ignore or scorn them. I do not support the Westboro Baptists attending one of my fellow brother or sister’s in arms funerals however. In that case they are infringing on a very private and sacred event. But then again look at the freak show that occurred the night before last at the Staples Center.
Enjoy your children witnessing advertisements for pornography and lap dances in next year’s parade (which is completely constitutional as long as they are clothed). I’m sure all of you here think it is a good idea for an eight year old to witness scantily-clad women dancing on a float. It’s a lesson in freedom and liberty! I’m so glad I live in a county where there are actually people who feel that exposing children to simulated sexual acts is the American thing to do.
For the record, I have no problem with the signs in the parade and I do not support the above in a parade. I’m simply pointing out the fallacy of logic being displayed. If you feel the above statement should be allowed in the parade, congrats… you are true to your beliefs and I can respect that. If you feel otherwise… please rethink your logic. The rules may need changed but its not a 1st ammendment case. Its a “the rules need to be changed because the average parade goer would not find this offensive” case.
“I love my apples with grapes. I cannot see any connection between politicians carrying signs and the Westboro Baptist Church. ”
Of course you can’t… its a hyperbole of the situation. Both a freedom of speech issues, one is just much more extreme than the other.
I meant are not a in 84
Joe he wants to impose bigger more intrusive govt. on parades that is very non-republican of him to want to impose regulation on non-profit parade comittees. Almost like passing a law to apply to one person like Terry Schivo!
You can not be for less govt. and want to legislate 4th of July Parades!
Cdev – It’s a Constitutional matter first and foremost. The remedies are part of a legal process which is the proper venue and path to resolve these issues.
However, it is not a more vs. less government question. Besides Delegates McDonough and Impallaria are both on the record as conservatives for less government, lower taxes and defenders of the Constitution.
Finally, Mr. Blum and the parade marshals are the folks that are the transgressors and violators of the rights of others. They could resolve this unfortunate situation; apologize to all those people they have offended and write new parade rules that are Constitutionally compliant.
Joe
I like how in two threads my point has been completely ignored. Won’t anyone come up to the plate and admit that they will support showing children sexual acts in the name of free speech. Don’t you all realize that if you oppose this you are not completely for free speech but rather only when it is convienent for you?
And where are you Delegate Mcdonough? Where do you stand on this? I know you read this because in your high and mighty position as Delegate you have nothing better to do than argue with a website. So which one is it… freedom of speech or protecting our children’s innocence?
1.Sexual acts are not protected speech. This invalidates your argument.
2. The Constitution and the free speech that it protects is the law of the land. That is, regardless of any rule, speech cannot be limited by any government entity. If they decide next year not to accept public money the argument may change.
And if I may posture a guess I would say the Del. McDonough would defend the rights of any group that was practicing free speech.
Anon, you were ignored for a good reason. Inflaming the discussion doesn’t add anything. Who was talking about sex acts an porn?
I came across a great quote this morning that seems to be applicable here:
“The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.”
– — Joseph Joubert
1.Sexual acts are not protected speech. This invalidates your argument.
I wasn’t saying there would be actual acts. But they CAN advertise it and it is free speech. I wasn’t very clear in that post and that is my fault. It happens at Ravens games all the time where the dancers dress in skimpy little outfits and hand out fliers about specials at their club later on.
And its not inflaming the discussion. Its bringing up a point. How far are you willing to take freedom of speech? Like I said, I can’t imagine many here approving of this. But it would be completely legal.
So my original question remains to the Delegate… if a group wants to advocate their strip club in front of a bunch of children (even though realistically it would never happen) would you feel they have a right to do that in the parade.
Anon- Commercial speech does not enjoy the same level of protection as individual and political speech. And your Ravens example is not relevant since the game is a private enterprise event.
Regarding your question – “How far are you willing to take freedom of speech?” my answer is all the way!
Joe
Post #93 was intended as a response to:) and not Anon.
Joe he is talking about proposing legislation. That is govt. regulation! That is not less govt. That is more!
🙂 Lewd acts are protected speech Flynt v Robertson!
The parade is NOT a govt. entity. It is a non-profit organization!
Joe commercial speech very much does enjoy that same level of freedom! The only thing preventing The Gold Club of Baltimore from putting a float in the parade with non-nude dancers on polls is the parade rules which you are claiming unconstitutional. It is the same thing prohibiting a Klan float with a burning cross. The rainbow coalition with a gay marrige and the pro-life movement with dead fetus pictures. All of which are protected first amendment speech. The only thing preventing them is that this is a parade by a non-profit group which is private.
Cdev – Public money equals free speech.
Joe
No I think Joe is partially correct. There are more restrictions about freedom of speech regarding commercial enterprises. Whether those restrictions are applicable to this situation I’m not so sure about. If a company says, “Our hamburgers cure cancer”, freedom of speech would not apply there. In the parade, there’s other companies so I don’t see how there would be any issue. And you could substitute an erotic pole dancing society or anything here. If someone thought about it enough, they would be able to find something to put in the parade that is explicitly sexual and not violating any laws (i.e. no nudity etc but still sexual)
And regarding the Ravens games, the girls are outside the park, usually in the parking lots or on the streets where they are likely to run into middle aged men. Not actually in the park, so it would be public. Again that’s my fault for not clarifying.
Joseph, you are true to your beliefs I can respect that. I think you have taken the time to sit down and think this through and reached a conclusion that is logically sound (which I don’t see how anyone can refute you on this matter). I do, however, have my doubts about many of the people who sent in a flood of letters. If they all sat down and took the time you took to think this through, to think of all the doors this would open, I’m sure many would retract their statements (although some are true libertarians like yourself).
That is why I still have my question to the Delegate. He is an elected official. I’m sure many people would be most unhappy if he came out in favor of the above statements. I’d actually be shocked if a majority of his constituents supported it considering how I saw a number of people around me get extremely upset at people yelling at O’Malley simply because there were children around (which I feel the hecklers had every right to do so if they felt that way).
Also I’d like to point out what I’m bringing to attention is not the primary argument. Cdev is debating whether or not it is legal (Which I am not). I’m just wondering if people actually thought through the repercussions of what they are asking for (which again Joe has).
Call Pat and ask him. He’s civil and reasonable, and will talk to you. Good times.
Let us know what he says:)
410-238-0025
🙂 aka Smiley – You’re right! I have found Pat to be civil and reasonable, he also is committed in his defense of the Constitution and the protection of ALL our rights (inclusive of Smiley people in tights rights).
The beauty of our Consititution is its enduring and durable protections of our rights. If there is one thing people across the political spectrum should agree on is protection of Free Speech with the cure for speech by people that we may disagree being more Free Speech.
I don’t expect to convince you that I’m right or that the Free Speech is worth protecting albeit sometimes inconvenient! I look to convince those that are open minded and following this thread and in particular my reasonable posts.
Joe
I’ve met Pat and spoken to him. I completely understand where he comes from. He is not really who I am referring to though. I have no doubt Pat is completely devoted to his cause rather than when it is convienent (like I feel it is with some people).
And for cdev… How about giving a specific example of another non profit that receives government funds and is allowed to make its own rules. Also posting the definition of.50c3 (which I think the parade is classified though I could be wrong) would help. Showing exactly where it discusses the government money issue.
Also my question for the Delegate still stands.
Anon,
Cdev has a history on this site of distorting facts – be prepared.
Add to the Ravean’s game that M&T Bank stadium is owned by the state of MD!
OK another non-profit recieving govt. funds……
http://www.july4thbristolri.com/2009_ParadeFloatApplication.pdf
Seems you can not promote winners or organizations or pageants in this parade which is run by Bristol, RI.
According to Arlington, TX it seems they are prohibited from allowing campaigning (read section F). and they seem to be sponsored by the city of Arlington!
http://www.arlington4th.com/rules_reg.htm
Please read Political Entries rule 2 in this parade.
http://www.wheatonjaycees.org/fourth/contract.html
In fact back to parade rule number 1……
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/rhode_island_tea_party_bristol_parade_banned20090710
It appears Wheaton, IL has a 4th of July Paarade and it recieves city funds to a non-profit.
http://www.wheatonjaycees.org/fourth/2009/index2.html
Please note rules for political enterants rule number 2
http://www.wheatonjaycees.org/fourth/contract.html
Then we have Arlington, TX
http://www.arlington4th.com/sponsors_curr.htm
Please Note Section F.
http://www.arlington4th.com/rules_reg.htm
It seems as if they are motivated by the same section of the IRS code to be non-partisan.
Finally the Oldest Parade in the Country…Bristol, RI
http://www.july4thbristolri.com/sponors.html
Note Rule #2 and then the bottom of the rules section.
http://www.july4thbristolri.com/2009_ParadeFloatApplication.pdf
It is very general of course. The Tea Party Group’s are not welcome because they couldn’t follow the rules.
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/rhode_island_tea_party_bristol_parade_banned20090710
Regarding the Belair, July 4th Parade: I believe the theme of the Parade was “American Patriots, Then and Now”. It is my understanding that there was an attempt to prohibit someone marching in the Parade from carrying a sign promoting “English” as America’s first language. Actually, I believe English currently is (officially) our first language, and if the marcher thinks it should remain that way that is Freedon Of Speech; although in its mildest form, that’s “American Patriotism”. Right now, especially now, we need more Patriots marching—anyplace—carrying signs expressing their opinion as to how they think America should be or should be “preserved”.
If someone wishes to march in a parade carrying even the whackiest of signs, as long as it isn’t obsene or threatening, they should have the Freedom to do so and the spectators should have the Freedom to laugh or boo as loud as loudly as they can. Nobody should have the right to take the sign from them.
American Patriots for Independence and British Loyalists “then” (then being the American Revolution of 1776) marched and carried signs expressing their opinions and the Freedom Marchers won as I hope they always will.
What was wrong with Pat’s sign? The trouble was that the Liberal Democrats can’t understand the Constitution of the United States in it’s true original meaning. And Freedom of speech is one of them. Liberals are against anything true American . They’re against In God We Trust , Freedom of Free Speech the Rights to own a weapon to protect your Home and family my god they’re even against the Boy Scouts of America. So Pat keep after them ,this is America and ENGLISH is our Language
anon I tried to post links for you but apparently it did not go through. A Bing search for July 4th Parade rules yeilds 3 parades on the front page.
Arlington, TX
Wheaton, IL
Bristol, RI
All three are sponsored by the respective cities in the same way as the Bel Air Parade. They all have rules about campaigning, negetive signs and objectionable floats, language slogans. Most of them are far more generally written then the Bel Air rules. Further more the Arlington one seems to cite one of the reasons for the campaigning prohibition rule is part of the IRS code. It also seems the Tea Party Movement violated the rules in the Bristol Parade and are no longer welcome back there!
Cdev – What is important is what happened at the Bel Air 4th of July Parade and while the three other parades you cite are mildly interesting they are of no consequence. There were two groups of people that were deprived of their Freedom of Expression.
1. Parade participants that had their patriotic messages removed by Blum.
2. Spectators that were forced by parade marshals to put down their signs.
There is no question that Blum et al exceed their authority and suppressed the rights of others and for those imprudent acts there will be consequences.
Joe
Hey Joe,
Why are you bothering to argue with Cdev? He has proven, numerous times in this blog and others, that his opinion overrides any and all facts.
Arturro – I am helping Cdev learn about Freedom of Speech and Expression. It is a public service I provide to folks that are self-deluded.
Joe
Despite a lot of early hype, I haven’t seen anything on this recently. Does anyone know what’s going on? Will there be any follow up on this or is it (like I suspected all along) just a publicity stunt to anger the Delegate’s base at the establishment. Like I said earlier, while some here (Joe, Pat etc.) do actually believe this and will stay involved on this matter because they feel it is what the country needs, most (like some who posted here but will remain nameless) will not consider the issue thoroughly and the Delegate will use this to take advantage of their time and money because they view him as a champion of free speech.
McDonough is smart enough to know that if he continues to pursue this issue, his opponents will attack him as someone who supports atheists, homosexuals, etc. in the parade. The commentors here are not political strategists but they are smart enough to bring that up. While SOME have no problem with that (usually the knowledgable libertarians that post on here), most of those offended by Blum’s actions would go nuts if those groups were in the parade. So he did what he needed to do and now he’s going to drop it. Just wait.
I went ahead and looked into what Cdev was talking about. He does have a point and here’s why. The Bel Air Parade is a 501c3 (its on the bottom of the website). 501c3’s are not allowed to directly or indirectly endorse any particular candidate. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html)
At the same time, 501c3s are allowed to receive taxpayer dollars. This is commonly done through government grants. If one of you wants to go ahead and find an exception about sponsorships go ahead but I don’t have the time to do that. But that’ll help alleviate the issue about the public money going to the parade.
Because of this, I think its indisputable that the rule saying “__________ for ___________” should definately not be allowed in the parade, because if it were the parade could forfeit its tax exempt status.
Now regarding the signs… I’m not a tax lawyer, but from what I’ve read on the subject, they can be allowed. Meaning the rules can be changed to allowed those signs in the parade as long as they aren’t specifically trying to influence a legislative outcome. So a sign that say “Pat McDonough supports speaking english” can be whereas “Pat McDonough encourages everyone here to support bill _______, requiring everyone to speak English” is not.
Still a 501c3 is a private organization so they should be allowed to make their own rules. The restrictions involved in a 501c3 are not the same restrictions that the average person walking down the street faces. Its really not the same thing. A church that is listed as a 501c3 that partakes in political activity is at risk of losing their tax exempt status. Same deal as a parade. To be slightly ironic here, if you have an issue with this, take it up with the IRS.
Joe I was specificly asked if I could think of other non-profits and I replied!
Dear Anon –
The 501C3 can’t endorse a political candidate, position or party. In other words they can’t sponsor a Democrat or Republican 4th of July Parade. They also cannot restrict, suppress or silence the speech of others which is what from all accounts happened.
Let’s not be confused and focus like a laser beam on the reality that Blum and his marshals violated the rights of both paraders and spectators. And certainly the 501C3 did not provide extraordinary powers to Blum et all to reinterpret Constitutional rights.
Joe
Joe,
were you at the parade? After talking to a friend of mine who was. Who had a I love Ehrlich sign, She has We lov our Gov stickers on our car etc. She told me she was never once asked to put her sign away. I have not seen Del. McDonough put that in print. So the rights of the spectators was not being abridged…….As far as the participants where in the 501C3 code does it say they can not restrict speech? In fact would they not have to in order to not be seen as endorsing a point of view?
I mean if Del. McDonough can campaign in the parade then Mr. Glass and other cadidates have a legit complaint!
I just found this website today, and became fascinated by the entire July 4th parade issue. What jumped out at me from all of the above posts, is the fact that the majority of posters who are quick to hurl insults at Del. McDonough, don’t have the courage to use their real names. Therefore, their credibility leaves much to be desired.
Now, to the issue at hand, I am 58 years old, participated and/or watched many community parades on July 4th in the course of my lifetime. It has always been my belief that on the 4th of July we are celebrating our freedom as a nation, including the freedoms & rights provided in our Constitution. The mere fact that an organization has restricted the freedom of speech over a period of time doesn’t make it right.
I urge all Americans to support Del. McDonough in this quest to protect the rights that so many Americans have fought & died for. I also urge the parade committee to reconsider it’s policy.
Sincerely,
Scott Sewell
Proud American
p.s. I’m not a legal scholar, but I think the courts would agree with Del. McDonough in regards to the freedom of speech violation.
Cdev –
According to accounts of the parade spectators speech was suppressed.
Candidates as well as elected officials should be able to march.
Joe
Well Joe they are not (both allowed to march) This is not a campaign. Whose account?
Again Joe you dodged the question. Where YOU actually there?
Cdev – Relax oh so anonymous and cowardly one, my sources were paraders that were accosted by Blum.
The parade is a celebration of America and allowing elected officials and candidates that want to march should be allowed to do so.
Why are you so against freedom?
Joe
Candidates as well as elected officials should be able to march.
That’s completely illegal. Its still an indirect endorsement. That’s why they can’t have it at all. If they did, it would be considered an indirect endorsement. Also a 501c3 is a private organization. The rights of the state don’t apply to a private organization. A company is also a private organization. Even if it receives tax dollars, if it is private, they are not obligated to protect free speech. They can but they can also choose not to. They legally could have allowed the Speak English signs but they did not have to.
I think the fact that it is clear by now that neither McDonough nor anyone else is actually going to take this to court shows the misinterpretation of the law here. You do bring up very very good points and one has to look deep into tax code laws to find the exact definition but from what I’ve seen (and I’m sure any lawyer who took the time to look into this) it is completely constitutional. If you are so sure about this go ahead and take it to court but I guarantee you that you will lose. I provided some good starting links and I encourage you to look into 501c3s more if you want to prove me wrong but simply rattling off stuff as unconstitutional without actually citing where you found it (i.e. “They also cannot restrict, suppress or silence the speech of others which is what from all accounts happened. “) doesn’t really do anything.
The attorneys working on this case have examined the case work, and the conclusion is that there is sufficient precedent with public entities providing money to private organizations such that this is an infringement of free speech.
Anon, you clearly have no idea as to what the hell you are talking about. If you are willing to guarantee the result of a lawsuit, I would be willing to take the otherside, and bet a $500 donation to the philanthropy of your choice on the outcome of the suit. Let me know if you are ibtererested and we will set up the escrow account.
501(c)3s can invite candidates and incumbents to march in a parade or any other sponsored event for that matter, they just can’t endorse a particular candidate or party.
Joe
Again Joe! Were YOU actually there?
I am not against free speech. I simply think in this situation Pat McDonough is in the wrong and his reaction has just cost him my vote! You see I am one of those constituents he refers to in the letter! He has instead spent his time cattering to a group of people who do not actually reside in his district and had his many minions who do not live in his district or this county sending in letters from talking points on events they did not see.
Before you say you probably didn’t vote for him anyway. I did and I will still vote for Impilleria at this time. JB Jennings has also lost my vote. So I am looking for two more candidates for the GOP primary (If I am still a registered Republican at that point) and two more general election candidates. But under no circumstances will Delagate McDonough get my vote. He has acted like a complete Arse and is catering to people who do not live in his district for no good to be derived by his constituents whom he is supposed to be representing. I think he has forgotten that and he will be reminded on election day!
Smiley please cite the attorneys you speak of and Joe cite the section of the Tax code!
Not to mentione there seems to be precedent of 501c3 parades sponsored by towns with rules restricting politicians in parades!
Cdev –
Why don’t you go find the information yourself?
And no I did not attend the Bel Air parade.
Joe
Because I did not make the assertion that it was correct. You did! It is called backing up your information with fact!
Cdev -You certainly have asserted that a 501(c)3 would be in violation of the IRS Code.
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/9D79C3A2-8653-4148-B9651D2E3996D0F8/catID/CE94A6B3-EFB6-4036-8498D5414328FD73/111/262/ART/
Joe
I did and backed it up with a citation. until now you have not. In your link it says “directly or indirectly” A sign saying elect or re-elect someone is part of that.
Cdev –
Obviously you can’t comprehend the written word.
Your opinion is so strong that you want McDonough to be wrong and Free Speech not to be at issue. Sorry things are what they are.
Joe
“501(c)3s can invite candidates and incumbents to march in a parade or any other sponsored event for that matter, they just can’t endorse a particular candidate or party.”
Your source would beg to differ where it says “inviting a political candidate to make a campaign speech at an event hosted by the organization”. Now granted, marching in a parade is not a campaign speech. But it is the same principle. It is something that is prohibited by 501c3 rules while would normally be protected by the 1st ammendment.
Regarding :). I’m actually too young to receive a credit card in my name in this economy so escrow won’t work (Rejected due to no credit history for now). I’m sure I know people who would be interested in that offer. If you had something else in mind (i.e. time at a charity of one’s choice etc.) I could do that. And like I said, I’m not a lawyer, so if you do have proof of lawyers actively working on the matter I’d love to see it.
Also I don’t see how being at the parade made a difference. I did not see the incident but I feel I understand what is going on. Most of the stuff Joe is discussing is technical stuff that had no bearing on the parade. I may be wrong but Joe doesn’t seem to want to charge Mr. Blum with assault charges or any of that. He’s simply debating the constitutionality of allowing signs in the parade. One would not have to be at the parade to be knowledgable on this subject. The only thing required is a sharp mind and ability to search legal documents, both things Joe seems to possess.
Joe’s assertion that spectators writes have been trampled (post 108 #2). That seems to be something that is being fabricated and very much in debate as to if it even happened.
What were spectators writing? Were they writing on the signs in the parade route and Blum walked on them?
sorry ted r. Rights
Has anyone actually looked at relevant cases?
JOHN J. HURLEY AND SOUTH BOSTON ALLIED WAR VETERANS COUNCIL, PETITIONERS v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, ETC., ET AL., 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
Holding: The Court reasoned the requirement to admit a parade group expressing a message not of the private organizers’ own choosing violated petitioners’ First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I, rights, because in the content of free speech, outside of the commercial advertising setting, a state could not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees.
In other words, the parade committee had every right to exclude the signs it felt were not appropriate for the event.
This was Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade – organized by a private non-profit group that received some public funds and used public streets and police.
Of course no one would do that because it might not agree with their position that they are poor victims. That said I didn’t look it up either but glad to know that not only the tax code but legal precedent agree with what I have been saying.
NB8507 –
With regard to Hurley v. Irish-American GLBT case related to a Massachusetts public accommodations law, a private group of unincorporated individuals putting on a thematic parade and a group that promoted a message inconsistent with the theme.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=515&invol=557
The Bel Air 4th of July Independence Day Parade has different elements. The parade was about “Patriots Then and Now” a political and historical theme, the messages conveyed by the participants were consistent with the theme and the question is about the Free Speech of marchers and spectators that were suppressed by Blum and the marshals.
The relevant facts in the two incidents are immensely different and while mildly interesting the Hurley matter is not analogous or comparative to the Bel Air 4th of July Parade suppression of Free Speech.
Joe
So many folks are right on target on this thread. Like so many tea baggers, McDonough is the first to call on The Constitution when it helps him (his free speech argument) and then turns around says the Constitution needs to be changed when it doesn’t explicitly say “speak English”. I hope voters remember this in ’10.
Dearest Kim Mcarthy –
McDonough has not called for the Constitution to be changed with regards to English becoming the Nation’s or the State of Maryland’s “Official Language’. It is not a Constitutional matter.
There are already 28 States that have English as their “Official Language”. My opinion is that in Federal matters English should be the “Official Language” and States should be free to establish English as their official language as they see fit.
Joe
Joe that is h\the case GLIB made in Massachuesetts court but SCOTUS ultimately held that the govt. can not force a private group (even if it recieves a public sponsor) to change it’s message or rules. That doing so violates the 1st ammendment protection of the group. SO….since Delgate McDonough is an agent of the govt. his threats are a first ammendment violation against the parade comittee; which Hurly holds is in fact a private organization ergo Blum is NOT acting as an agent of the state since he is a chair of a private organization!
Cdev –
You need to carefully read the case and the opinion of the Hurley matter again. The relevant facts are quite different. In the Bel Air matter both marchers and spectators were suppressed. Even you have to agree that suppression occurred, now the questions are were the marchers and/or the spectators deprived of their Freedom of Expression. In the Hurley matter the Irish GBLT Group never marched and it was a question of whether they could or could not march and the St. Patrick’s Parade spectators never came into the matter at all.
These two incidents are like apples to oranges with the common basis of both being fruit.
Joe
I will agree supression occured of the marchers as a result of rules. Rules which had been in place for a while, rules the marchers agreed to live by in writing and rules which are designed to craft the message of the parade of a non-partisan event.
As to suppression of the crowd. I have not seen, heard or read a first hand account of that to date. You assert that but when I asked if you where there, finally on the third time you say “no, but that is not relevent” You are not a first hand account. The one account I heard from someone with one of the signs was that no one asked her to put it away.
The actionable position of Hurly infront of SCOTUS was if the state suppressed the parade organizers free speech by forcing them to admit or accept something they did not want as part of their message. SCOTUS held that the private organization, even though they recieved services at no charge from the city, could not be forced to admit a group that they disagreed with. The only real difference in regards to GLIB and McDonough is that GLIB was excluded and McDonough was asked to abide by the rules he agreed to as a condition of his entry into the parade.
Cdev –
First of all McDonough, Impallaria and their contingents had signs with messages consistent with the Parade theme of “Patriots Then and Now”. There are accounts of spectators being suppressed, which without question would have violated their First Amendment Rights.
Secondly, the Hurley matter is not comparable because the elements are wholly different, Massachusetts State Law is different and we don’t have a lawsuit to debate at this point anyway. And hopefully the matter will be resolved and their will not be any lawsuits.
Finally, you can keep pounding square pegs through round wholes all you like, it will not make your faulty opinions into facts.
Joe
Cdev, will you even stipulate to an unequal application of the rules (this year vs. previous years), or are you in this for complete vindication for the parade officials?
Yes I will stipulate that it is possible that the rules may have been applied different in previous years then this year. Will you stipulate that they (Blum and co.) attempted to apply the rules equally to all politicians by asking politicians of all parties and belief to remove elect, re-elect etc.?
I will even stipulate that if spectators where asked to remove there signs because of belief (not if it was an annoyance to other spectators in the sense it obstructed their view) then that would be a first ammendment violation as there was no “free speech zones” set up. If that was truly the case then McDonough would lacck standing to bring any suit that would be up to the individuals to whom that actually happened too. If indeed it did happen. As I said before I know a women personally who had such a sign and even booed the governor(which I find distasteful regardless of how bad he is); she told me she was not ever once asked by anyone to stop other then parade goers who just moved to be away from her. She excercised her first ammendment right to act like a moron in my opinion but she was free to do so. I reiterate I have not heard, seen, read a first hand acount of any spectators who had this actually happen to them.
I again assert Joe if you read the whole SCOTUS opinion you cited particularly IV that Sooters opinion clearly outlines that the application of Mass law by the Mass Superior court violated the 1st and 14th ammendment rights of the parade organizers by forcing someone elses point of view on their free speech which they are not obligated to do. The differences between the two cases are that GLIB was denied entry and McDonough was allowed to do so and keep his signs they asked him to remove. ERGO even if it was acctionable he would have no damages.
Impellaria on the other hand would but so far he has handled this in a rational manner. One which will allow me to vote for him despite some of our differing opinions. Hence the reason McDonough will be out of a job and Impellaria will not be.
THE PARADE IS A NON-SECTARIAN, NON-PARTISAN EVENT.
a. Elected officials of Harford County municipalities are invited to participate in the parade free of charge out of respect for their offices; this includes the Town of Bel Air Commissioners; Elected Administrative and Court Officers of Harford County; Elected Officials of the Harford County Government; Maryland State Senators and Delegates with Harford County constituents; Maryland State Government elected officials with Harford County constituents; and United States elected officials with Harford County constituents. These officials will participate in the parade in a unified division, staged separately from the rest of the parade.
b. Political clubs or organizations may NOT participate, since they are by definition partisan. Candidates for elected office may not participate for the same reason.
c. Elected officials of municipalities outside Harford County are welcome to participate, but must formally apply to enter and pay a $175 non-refundable Entry Fee. These officials will NOT be staged together with the Elected Officials, but will be placed in the parade according to their unit descriptive category (personal entry; mobile unit; marching unit; etc.)
d. No participant will be permitted to display material advertising any candidacy for public office, nor shall there be any campaigning along the parade route. THIS RULE WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.
Cdev & PARADE RULES AND REGULATIONS Guy –
McDonough, Impallaria and their contingents were in compliance with the parade rules (they were suppressed) and spectators’ Free Speech was suppressed.
As I’ve stated previously, there is little to compare the Massachusetts case with the Bel Air matter. The Bel Air matter should be resolved outside of court, but if people cannot agree to an amicable and thoughtful resolution then a remedial process will ensue.
Joe
Joe, Mcdonough was clearly not in compliance with rules. WIll you at least stipulate that? You can arugue the constitutionality of the rules. But a sign saying “Speak English” Advocates a cause!
So does “Don’t Do Drugs” or “Support Your Local Police” or “Help Your Children With Their Homework”.
Phil I heard him say that when he hosted the Tom Mahr show on friday I believe? That is not the issue. The rules may need adjusting but the previous poster claimed that he did not violate the parade rules and he clearly did!
Cdev and Phil –
1. Cdev – McDonough and Impallaria by my reading of these poorly drafted rules were in compliance.
2. Phil – See poorly drafted rules and “Remember to Be All You Can Be”
Joe
Cdev – I also said it back in post 57 on July 8th.
How did he “clearly” violate the rules when so many people think he didn’t? Clearly? Clearly not.
i did not know where else to put this, so since this dude feels that we should be able to say what we want when we want and wave signs that are borderline racist, i figured this is the perfect place to add:
Pat,
How do you feel about the kids holding up signs of aborted babies? The ones that are sueing HCSO. Is that ok? i mean, a dead baby should be treated as eaqually as your “speak english” crap right?
Free speech is great and we should all be able to say whatever we like. But, some things are a bit silly and since we can’t trust human beings to be…well, human, i think that we should put a lid of some of this junk on the streets. INCLUDING anything with dead stuff and anything that is seriously offensive.
How does Pat expect his target audience to know that he is mandating they “Speak English!” if they can’t speak english? Shouldn’t he change his campaign slogan to “¡Hable Inglés!” or the like in another language?…or is Pat just using this as a populist political ploy? 😉
There is nothing remotely “racist” about having English as the official language of the nation, state or county.
More than half of States in the United States have English as their official language.
Furthermore “Speak English” does not mean “English Only”.
Joe
While I think this entire debate is pretty stupid, I gotta agree that “Speak English!” is not racist. There is nothing wrong with making English the official language of this country. There is not one government or court system in this country that conducts it’s business in a language other than English and expecting people who choose to came here learn English is not unreasonable. I know learning a foreign language is very difficult for most people (it was by far my worst subject in school.) I honestly think that most immigrants to our country would like to learn English, but unfortunately many of them end up living and working with people who speak little or no English and never venture outside that small circle of associates. It’s tough to learn another language when you’re not exposed to it.
I have had plenty of works crews come to my house for various jobs and typically it’s been 3 or 4 Hispanics and only one of them speaks any English (and several even that one has been very limited in his command of the English language.) They’ve always worked hard and done a good job, but most of them I couldn’t really communicate with.
I do get pissed off at the ones who come here and live here for years without learning much English.
Our court system provides translators. Would the speak English movement discontinue that?
Yes, the court system provides translators, but the business of the court is conducted in English.
Discontinuing translators would be a bad idea and I doubt that anyone other than the most extreme members of a “speak English” movement would advocate doing away with translators (be they Spanish, French, Russian, whatever.)