Creative Philosophy and Sociology of the Law of Peace, c.199

Addendum #1: March 14, 1996

Supreme Court Decision -- June 19, 1995 Docket # 94-749 -- Hurley vs. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston
This is the case known as the (SOAPBOX) decision.

This case is supremely important, in my opinion. I feel very strongly that if the Right to Peaceably Assemble and./or have OUR STYLE of Gathering protected, which includes a lot of our Lifestyle.

Cultural Practices



This would mean that someone who is not speaking the message of the Rainbow Family Tribal Council could not in any way be considered a legitimate spokesperson of the exact expression of the Rainbow Family Tribal Council etc... unless the Rainbow Family Tribal Council would agree and only the Rainbow Family Tribal Council speaks for itself; and there are individuals who Gather with us who do not agree that the Rainbow Family Tribal Council speaks for them. Our common Ground Agreement is (peaceable assembly,) individual responsibility, collective responsibility with those who in unity agree to collective responsibility, acceptance, tolerance.

Page 10 of 15 -- (Petitioners' claim to the benefit of this principle of autonomy to control one's own speech is as sound as the South Boston parade is expressive. Rather like a composer, the Council selects the expressive units of the parade from potential participants, and though the score may not produce a particularized message, each contingent's expression in the Council's eyes comport with what merits celebration on that day. Even if this view gives the Council credit for a more considered judgement than it actively made, the Council clearly decided to exclude a message it did not like from the communications it chose to make, and that is enougth to invoke its right as a private speaker to shape its expression by another.)

This could mean that Our right to Exclude those who are Violent or whose behavior is not peaceable, which in the past, WE have done, as a people, is definably legit. Also, folks who carry Guns, Clubs, into Our Gatherings, such as Police or other Authority, may not have the right -- not part of our Expression, guns and violence. Our Gatherings are Peaceable Assemblies and should have the right to Exclude law Enforcement, with guns and cameras, who enter without permission.

Page 11 of 15 -- (475 U.S., at 15 (plurality) (citation omitted). The plurality made the further point that it -the government {were} freely able to compel ... speakers to propound political messages with which they disagree, {of a speaker's freedom} would be empty, for the government could require speakers to affirm in one breath that which they deny in the next. - Id., at 16. thus, when dissemination of a view contrary to one's own is forced upon a speaker intimately connected with the communication advanced, the speaker's right to autonomy over the message is compromised.)

As I read it, the government's trying to force down our throats a permit process, does just this; they know we may be forced (to affirm in one breath that which (we) they deny in the next.)

Page 13 of 15 -- (It might , of course, have been argued that a broader objective is apparent: that the ultimate point of forbidding acts of discrimination toward certain classes is to produce a society free of the corresponding biases. Requiring access to a speaker's message would thus be not an end in itself, but a means to produce speakers free of the biases, whose expressive conduct would at least be neutral toward the particular classes, obviating any future need for correction. But if this indeed is the point of applying the state law to expressive conduct, it is a decidedly fatal objective. Having availed itself of the public thoroughfares - for purposes of assembly (and) communicating thoughts between citizens, - the Council is engaged in a use of the streets that has -from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. - Hague v. Committee for Industiral Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939) (opinion of Roberts, J.). Our tradition of free speech commands that a speaker who takes to the street corner to express his views in this way should be free from interference by the State based on the content of what he says. See, e.g., Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972); of. H. Kalven, Jr., A Worthy Tradition 76-19, (1988); O. Fiss, Free Speech and Social Structure, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 1405, 1408-1409 (1986). The very idea that a noncommercial speech restriction be used to produce thoughts and statements acceptable to some groups or, indeed, all people, grates on the First Amendment, for it amounts to nothing less than a proposal to limit speech in the service of orthodox expression. The Speech Clause has no more certain antithesis. See e.g., Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642;)

Remember this is concerning a council who wanted to exclude a Gay Group et. al.. At the Gathering WE have the Dance of the Fairies, a parade of our Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual brothers and sisters. We welcome these folks... However, what if the K.K.K. Ku Klux Klan or some other fascist group wanted to come and parade at the Gathering? We would have the right to Exclude them the eyes of Babylon. Whether that would be the decision of the People, at the time, on the land, in the light of day, is another story; ... I am only using an example here.

Also, as all this relates to Our Style/expression, Our particular (orthodox expression) is Our Gatherings... the sharing of Our (sacraments,) ... the raising Our children in Open, free ways! Our Way of Life, Our Guiding Principles of Peace, Love, Justice -- all of these Ways should be protected by the Right to Free Expression.

I do believe that this Supreme Court decision does translate that we could have the POLICE STATE ON THE THRESHOLD OF OUR PEACEABLE ASSEMBLIES REMOVED. [Page 14 of 15] -- IV (Our holding today rests not on any particular view about the council's message but on the nation's commitment to protect freedom of speech. Disapproval of a private speaker's statement does not legitimize use of the Commonwealth's power to compel the speaker to alter the message by including one more acceptable to others.)

In this the Justices are preserving Free Speech and a person's right to his/her own brand of Soapbox, one's own soapbox upon which to State, in Expression or Speech, one's Worthy Viewpoint. It would seem, in this, by extension, is Our Peoples' Right to Be!

We have the Right to Our Style of Gathering: OUR GATHERINGS, OUR STYLE OF GATHERINGS, OUR LIFESTYLE IS OUR FREE SPEECH, OUR FREE EXPRESSION, IS OUR SOAPBOX! This (soapbox) decision is radically important. And, it was from a conservative court, in a very strong decision. When this is backed up by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Native American Religious Freedom Act of 1979, and the First Amendment to the Constitution, it would almost seem like we have the Right to BE!

It may seem strange to use such a decision, where (exclusion) is the game. Our People want to exclude oppression and oppressive behavior from our Culture. We want to exclude intolerance, bigotry, prejudice. We want to exclude Violence in our personal lives as well as in the World. We want Peace, Love, Justice. We, Inclusive People, want to be left alone. Our Speech, Our Expression, Our Lifestyle, Our Gatherings... Our People -- We want to be Free to be Home! -om shanti amen...

Also, a lawyer friend pointed out another case very strong for activists, and mentioned in this Soapbox decision: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections comm'n, 514 U.S. (1995), re: right to remain anonymous? [page 10 of 15]. I would also like to thank folks who point out clerical errors, in my paper: thinking Kentucky, wrote should have read three Gatherings, in 1993: Tennessee (very small) - Kentucky and thanks...any information added to the paper is good with me...and add your own personal witness and add it to the Cultural Practices Claim/CREED. So many Gatherings, hard to keep track...

We are not going to be able to do the March 17, 1996 circle with 75 people. Lots of things didn't work out, including &good vibes' by a local District Office. It would take too long to rouse up the Government, not like Florida. It is nice that INDIVIDUALS are standing up in Florida, as I hear. As it should be...Get up! Stand UP! etc. Yes, the U.S. v. Israel in Arizona, is the Gideon Israel, at Rainbow Valley, and I and Sue are here, leaving in a few days, but here now, helping defend this particular Soapbox, with its particular Style of Peaceable Assembly.

Love to you all, See you in the Ozarks.

-Beaplunker, Harriet Tubman lives!