Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>.
>> Gregg: FORMER MARINE IS SUING
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR A
MILLION BUCKS.
IT'S GERALD SCOTT WAS ARRESTED
IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
BUILDING, IN THE BUILDING FOR
REFUSING TO TAKE OFF A JACKET
THAT HAD THE WORDS OCCUPY
EVERYTHING ON IT.
HE WAS CHARGED WITH UNLAWFUL
ENTRY.
SCOTT SAYS HIS FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED HERE.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DISAGREES
SAYING SCOTT COULD HAVE BEEN
CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE
DISPLAY CLAUSE MAKING IT ILLEGAL
TO DRAW ATTENTION TO A CAUSE
INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT OR ON
ITS GROUNDS.
DAVID WARTS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY
AND LIS WIEHL, FOX NEWS LEGAL
ANALYST.
LIS, SHOULD THIS FORMER MARINE
PREVAIL?
>> I'M NOT SURE HE IS GOING TO
GET MILLION DOLLARS BUT WHAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS SAYING, HE
COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AND
CHARGED UNDER THE DISPLAY
CLAUSE.
>> Gregg: PUT IT UP ON THE
SCREEN AND READ IT.
IT'S UNLAWFUL TO MOVE IN
PROCESSIONS OR...
>> Gregg: NOW, I STUDIED THAT.
I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW OCCUPY
EVERYTHING QUALIFIES?
>> THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE
TO ARGUE AND THAT OCCUPIES
EVERYTHING IS A FLAG OR A BANNER
OR DEVICE WEARING SOMETHING.
I'M NOT SAYING I BELIEVE IN THIS
ARGUMENT BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO
SAY AND BRINGS ATTENTION TO THE
OCCUPY WALL STREET, OCCUPY
EVERYTHING MOVEMENT.
>> IN THIS IS DISGRATE GRACE,
GREGG.
THIS IS FALSE ARREST.
FALSE ARREST CASE AND IT IS A
VIOLATION.
HOW CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING ON A
JACKET OR A SHIRT IS SOMEHOW A
FLAG OR A BANNER OF SOME SORT.
THAT WOULD BE LIKE IF YOU ARE
WEARING THE AMERICAN FLAG OR YOU
WALKING WITH A POLO SHIRT THEY
CAN ARREST YOU.
THIS IS VERY BUILDING WE WEE GOT
ALL THESE CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
>> Gregg: YOU COULD BE ARRESTED
FOR WEARING RALPH LAWYER EN?
>> I GOT A BUTTON THAT SAYS I
LOVE AMERICA BUT I DON'T THINK
I'LL BE ARRESTED.
>> THERE IS A SUPREME COURT
DECISION, 1971 DECISION WHERE A
GUY WALKED INTO A LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA COURT AND HE WAS
WEARING AN EXPLETIVE.
AND SUPREME COURT SAYS THE SAME
BODY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT
IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
IT'S COVERED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.
>> Gregg: IT'S OCCUPY
EVERYTHING.
>> IT DOESN'T COMPARE.
>> Gregg: SUPREME COURT HAS
REPEATEDLY SAID THAT FREE SPEECH
IS NOT ENTIRELY FREE.
TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF
RESTRICTIONS IS PERMISSIBLE AS
LONG AS IT SERVES A GOVERNMENT
INTEREST.
WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT INTEREST
INSIDE THAT SUPREME COURT
BUILDING?
HE IS NOT YELLING, SCREAMING.
>> HE WAS LOOKING AT AN EXHIBIT.
IF HE WAS WEARING WITH A GROUP
OF PEOPLE WEARING THIS AND
MOTIVATING OTHERS TO VIOLATE
SOMETHING, THAT IS DIFFERENT.
>> I JUST WATCHED THE VIDEO.
THERE ARE FEW PEOPLE AROUND.
THE OTHER PROTESTORS ARE OUTSIDE
THE BUILDING.
SO HE HAD NO CHANCE OF RILING UP
THE CROWD.
>> Gregg: HERE IS MY QUESTION,
WHY WOULD THE SUPREME COURT SO
IMPORTANT OR MORE IMPORTANT THAN
WHERE FREE SPEECH IS PERMITTED?
>> IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE
SUPREME COURT.
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IT'S A
FIRST AMENDMENT FREE ZONE,
REALLY?
>> Gregg: I'M NOT SURE THE
DISPLAY CLAUSE HAS BEEN
CONSTITUTIONALLY CHALLENGED.
>> THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL
SITUATION.
THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL PARADE OR
RILING UP THE TROOPS OR WHATEVER
YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
IT NEVER HAPPENED.
IT'S RIDICULOUS AND HE WILL
PREVAIL.
>> OTHER THING SUPREME COURT
SAYS RESTRICTION HAS TO BE
CONTENT NEUTRAL.
WELL, I THINK THERE COULD BE
VIOLATION OF THAT.
>> EXACTLY.
WHATEVER IS ON YOUR SHIRT
ACCORDING TO ONE PERSON IT'S NOT
ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS.
TO YOUR POINT, DAVID, THERE WERE
PEOPLE ARRESTED SAYING THE SAME
THING OUTSIDE THE COURTED.