"you have released a whirlwind..

@jimm619 said
.......Dunno', seems as if it would be
selective enforcement?

In US v. Grace (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/171/#F5) the SCOTUS struck down a portion of the same law that prohibited " "display [of] any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement" in the United States Supreme Court building or on its grounds, which are defined to include the public sidewalks constituting the outer boundaries of the grounds. "

It did not offer an opinion on the "parading" provision but the logic of the opinion should invalidate that portion as well:

" There is no doubt that, as a general matter, peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving "speech" protected by the First Amendment...................

It is also true that "public places" historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be "public forums.

In such places, the government's ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions

"are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication."

Additional restrictions such as an absolute prohibition on a particular type of expression will be upheld only if narrowly drawn to accomplish a compelling governmental interest."(Citations omitted).

I see no Constitutional difference between passing out a leaflet or parading on public grounds.

@no1marauder said
In US v. Grace (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/171/#F5) the SCOTUS struck down a portion of the same law that prohibited " "display [of] any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement" in the United States Supreme Court building or on its grounds, which are defined to include the public sid ...[text shortened]... .

I see no Constitutional difference between passing out a leaflet or parading on public grounds.

@jimm619 said
Malls are able to bar some....
https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-bars-only-black-lives-matter-organizers-from-mall-of-america-protest

@no1marauder said
I interpret it to mean, for the purposes of this discussion, that the People can protest in front of the homes of government officials to voice their displeasure at the actions of those officials. The law right wingers are trying to use to suppress those protests is unconstitutional in its entirety and by its express wording would criminalize protests at the SCOTUS itself or any other Federal Court building including the anti-abortion ones.

@no1marauder said
In US v. Grace (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/171/#F5) the SCOTUS struck down a portion of the same law that prohibited " "display [of] any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement" in the United States Supreme Court building or on its grounds, which are defined to include the public sid ...[text shortened]... .

I see no Constitutional difference between passing out a leaflet or parading on public grounds.

@averagejoe1 said
Plenty of amendments allow people privacy. Hey, if Kavanaugh is trying to sleep and your brother, the LGBQX person, is banging a drum on the street, he can be put in a jail cell. Say, yeah, I guess you’re right. Geez

If the law is that 9 judges decide something based on facts presented by people vetted by the bar association , should we not obey that law.? ...[text shortened]... d to consider the wishes of the street people with no standing.? Straight answer, no links. Jesus

@averagejoe1 said
Plain English

@no1marauder said
How far would you like me to "dumb" it down for you?