On 18 Dec 2014
Why Police Raids should be illegal,
. Ed Forchion was also prosecuted for the exact same thing as Heicklen
I don't think so. According to your source the daily "sheeple", Ed "weedman" Forchion was busted for pot and at his trial, he tried to present evidence as to jury nullification which was disallowed. The issue here is a procedural one, which I noted in post 43 revolves around the principle "Nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege." Frankly, I don't think you are ready to tackle that yet, so lets table this issue for the time being. As to the second issue:
Mark Schimdter was sent to jail without trial for doing the same damn thing that Forchion and Heicklen did.
This is completely wrong. During the Casey Anthony trial, Mr. Schmidter decided to descend upon the courthouse along with half of humanity who wanted screech their views on "tot mom". In response, Judge Perry issued an order restricting people from the boundary of the courthouse complex, meaning Mr. Schmidter, Nancy Grace, and all of humanity was relegated to the sidewalk (or designated free speech zones on campus) until such time as the trial was over. After receiving notice, warning arrest, Mr. Schmidter continued to distribute leaflets in clear violation of the order so he was arrested for contempt and jailed for 145 days.
On appeal, Schmidter argued Judge Perry's order violated his First Amendment rights because it "constitutes an unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech in a traditional public forum".
Contrary to Appellant's (Schmidter's) argument, this order does not apply to speech in a traditional public forum. This is because courthouses and courthouse grounds (with the exclusion of perimeter public sidewalks) have uniformly been treated as nonpublic forums for purposes of First Amendment analysis. See U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 SCHMIDTER V. STATE 103 So. 3d 263
There can be no question that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting its judicial system from the pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create. Since we are committed to a government of laws and not of men, it is of the utmost importance that the administration of justice be absolutely fair and orderly. This Court has recognized that the unhindered and untrammeled functioning of our courts is part of the very foundation of our constitutional democracy ․ [and that a] State may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that the administration of justice" Id.
Again, the fundamental question here (as was with Heicklen) relates to the time/place/manner restrictions on free speech that have been part of the constitution since its founding. Here the Florida court applied these principles and correctly found Schmidter guilty. This would not be causing you angst had you the slightest understanding of the underlying issue Dan. He was not jailed because of the content of what he said, but when and where he said it.
Fact of the matter is, the 1st amendment right to free speech has never been interpreted to say whatever you want, WHENEVER you want. There is a guy here in DC with a placard who regularly cries the govt violated his first amendment rights. His complaint: the govt would not let him walk into the State of the Union and speak his views about the incarceration of his adult son. Do you think this is a reasonable restriction on his speech?
Thus as I said in post 110 above: Keeping in mind the time/place/manner restrictions which have long set the boundaries of our 1st amendment, what in the holding of this case (Heicklen, and now Schmidter) do you disagree with? Say someone is invited to a Rose Garden ceremony for WWII Vets at the White House - if that decides to then "exercise their free speech rights" by denouncing abortion, breakdancing, advocating jury nullification, or bursting into song about hairstyles of the 1970s is it surprising to anyone that this person will be arrested?
Also, since this is a discussion on what the law IS, please respond with something a little more tangible than the "daily sheeple" to support your views.