"Little in the way of expression is outlawed under the United States Constitution, but an act which incites a lawful forceful response is unlikely to pass as expressive speech."I'm not a lawyer. But this line is truly terrifying. It seems to me that the only sort of free speech that needs protection by the Bill of Rights is speech that incites an otherwise "lawful" forceful response. This interpretation seemingly gives any legislative body the right to pass laws legalizing a forceful responses to any speech they see fit, and thus strip said speech of any First Amendment protection.
-Justice Frances A. McIntyre
The question is not whether the Constitution "outlaws" expression; the question is whether it prevents local and state executives and legislatures from outlawing expression. According McIntyre, it doesn't. Meaning, there is no utility to the Bill of Rights at all.
Also, I remember there being something about "assembly" in the First Amendment as well, though McIntyre seems to have neglected to mention that in his decision (you can read the entire thing here).
The fact is everyone should have realized that the courts would side with Menino regardless of the merits of the case. This demonstrates that the system is corrupt whenever the rights of ordinary citizens are concerned, particularly when they are taking part in activities that threaten the system itself (even if those actions only consist of speech and assembly). If you search your feelings, I am confident that you will come to the same conclusion I have; in this case, the law meant nothing. Which begs the question, why have the law at all? Why have these courts? Why should we ask for something (protection) from a corrupt system instead of doing it ourselves? If the system has made it explicitly clear, yet again, that rights are only afforded to those that either have a lot of money or don't expect anything to change, then why are we pleading with that system instead of trying to bring it down?
