Can someone explain to me like I am 5 how this does not infringe on the first amendment? Am I missing something? I am not versed in legal stuff at all, is this now a law or just proposed to be a law? Thanks!

https://preview.redd.it/ijxbmcs5x2yc1.jpg?width=1201&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1de3f1cbbaa578896df41ae5eaac77d3a8b6ca09

“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.” OUR FIRST AMENDMENT.

From their Mandate For Leadership, page 589.

Sabbath Rest. God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers.

Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath. That day would default to Sunday, except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time (e.g., Friday sundown to Saturday sundown); the obligation would transfer to that period instead. Houses of worship (to the limited extent they may have FLSA-covered employees) and employers legally required to operate around the clock (such as hospitals and first responders) would be exempt, as would workers otherwise exempt from overtime.

​

I'm arguing with the city about filming in a public building (100% owned by the city). They have a concert that is a paid event. I purchase a ticket as a member of the press. Cell phones are allowed in the venue and are used to take photos and record by the crowd; however, I'm denied entry because I have a DSLR camera. Their opinion is that they can deny me because of my camera. Doesn't matter if I'm press or not. The city believes the artist controls the terms of entry and that means no "pro" cameras. I'm interested in your opinion but most importantly any case law that backs up their position. I don't think they have legal standing.

Hello everyone

This is something that comes from a very foreign (Dutch to be precise) perspective.

I find the first amendment auditors to be a interesting phenomenon.

First of we'd never get away speaking to the police in the way auditor's (and a lotmofmother people on YouTube) do. Since here if you insult a government employee while in function you can get fined and even imprisoned. If you insult a cop you can expect to spend the night in prison. It's not to German level where they can do that if you use the informal way to address an officer. In the Netherlands using the informal way to addresss someone when talking to a cop won't get you arrested or fined. But call them pig, you'll get a fine for sure.

But my question is more related to how often I see the term corrupt used. Now English is my 3rd language so this might be a translation issue.

I often see police officers refered to as "corrupt" when they, either by malice or ignorance, violate constitutional rights of citizens. But "corrupt" is generally taken as someone who doesn't do their job right as a result of being bribed or having other financial incentives to go against the law/procedure.

Whereas I mostly see people on a power trip. Or overwhelmed by the situation. Police officers come in all kinds of people. Many are not graduates of any type of college or other form of advanced education. The training seems to be a specific job training. Not a lot of wider knowledge of the world. So the one featured in videos seem uneducated or tripping on power but not someone who has taken a bribe to attack the person in the video. Incompetence is also a much more likely reason in a lot of the videos I see.

So why is the term "Corrupt", which is a very heavy charge to put upon someone, used so often and almost standard?

(And a 2nd question if I may. Does anyone here know if the rights of US citizens also apply to visitors from befriended nations. I come from the Netherlands, there is a extradition treaty and a lot of other agreements between the governments. I don't need to apply for a visa if I want to visit to he US. I need to make sure I fill out that questionaire. But I don't have to go to the consulate in Amsterdam or the Embassy in The Hague to ask if I may pretty please come and spend my vacation money in the US. But I somehow feel that if any police officer asks me for my ID I better give it regardless if they have suspicion or there not being a state statue that requires one to provide proof of identity upon request. I feel the answer here is "no those rights don't apply to you." But I might be surprised. US law is filled with surprises)

Thank you for reading. And anyone who can shed any light on my main question (and also the second one) and is willing to do so. It is greatly appreciated.

~ Thomas

Wow, what a crazy day... I was followed, nearly stunned, and even had a security guard lose it over being filmed WHILE I was waiting for the police in a different matter... CRAZY day!! This incident happened at: Lit Smoking Supplies 2525 San Pedro Dr NE Albuquerque, NM 87110 Phone: (505) 200-0691 Updates to come fam..be sure to subscribe and hit the bell!!

https://youtube.com/shorts/j40D53hSepg

While following up on a lead of Cardi B's security guards trying to boss the public street, PATA encountered this police officer who tried to enforce their will to "scare me off"... this is a good video to show why KNOWING your rights is important...please subscribe.

Was having a great day at my alc and said Jesus Christ when I was suprised by something and the teacher told me to leave school. Did they go against my first amendment right as a citizen

Tennessee, Texas, Idaho, etc. have laws or are trying to pass laws that will put people in jail for 15 years if they tell a teenager about where to get an abortion, or if they give them money or text them a link to information, etc.

No matter what one thinks about abortion itself, isn't the First Amendment all about keeping governments from infringing on the rights of citizens to Free Speech? It seems to me that putting people in jail for giving information to a minor - even a relative or child - is as anti-First Amendment as you can get. Texas already prohibits doctors from free speech, threatening them with jail if they talk to patients about abortion care - even when someone is bleeding out in their clinic.

Here's a link to info on this: https://open.substack.com/pub/jessica/p/breaking-travel-bans-proposed-in?r=27oh8r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web