Slashdot Mirror

In the context of the First Amendment, such a meeting is called a limited public forum, and is subject to some restrictions by the government that organized it. http://www.firstamendmentcente... goes into more depth about what is and isn't allowed.

I very much doubt that the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account will be held to be either a traditional or limited public forum for the purposes of First Amendment analysis. It meets the usual criteria for a nonpublic forum, and any "public" uses of it align closely with Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) as described at https://canons.sog.unc.edu/lim....

If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts

Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...

Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing". What if my political opinion "triggers" somebody — causing them pain and/or other suffering? For now, such snowflakes are content to escape the brutal realities of life in "safe spaces". Unfortunately, those prolifereate and are already used to silence certain opinions.

True, FBI is not yet used to go after the "triggering" folks, but that can't be far off. When the current crop of students enters real life and their careers place (some of) them into actual decision-making positions, Law Enforcement will equate such triggering with assault — and doctors, currently in pre-med at those same campuses, will certify in court that the "victims'" "pain" is real...

Oh, and did you know, movement is seriously afoot to make "hate speech" a crime too?

tell someone that my intention is to do you harm

Yep. Right here... I do consider certain Illiberals to be beyond repair and do wish to make them uncomfortable — my very /. signatures are designed to mock something they hold dear. Intentionally.

Whatever this intent says about my own character flaws, it is still protected by the First Amendment today. But we are already sliding down the slippery slope... The First Amendment may be protecting a nebulous "right" to sell pornography (except for the child sort, for some reason), as well as to (quietly!) video-tape police. But, if the current trends aren't reversed, it will — in a generation — become illegal to say certain things because of the "painful reaction" such speech might cause...

Photos and free speech go hand in hand.

Not even close, there are certain circumstances when you can argue that photos can by covered by free speech but not the other way around, they are not equivalent or even close to being the same thing.

Yes very close. Nearly all photos are free speech. Seriously, go read anything on the first amendment. It's why you can film cops. It's why people can show pictures of aborted babies while protesting. It's why taking ballot selfies has been affirmed by federal courts 3 times. Unless it falls under a very specific set of exceptions like obscenity (your child porn example), libel, treason, and a few others. Thus the vast majority of pictures do in fact constitute free speech, which is a giant "durr" to anyone who gave it more than 2 seconds of thought or had passed US Government in HS.

If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections.

Well done, you just modified your argument because you realized how stupid you statement was. However, just because you are backpedaling it does not mean that I have to adjust my argument to mat ch yours, get back on subject buckaroo. (I can "draw the dots" for you back to what was said if you like/cant remember)

You can draw the dots but I saved myself a few seconds by typing "Europe" instead of "Every country in Europe." If you think that's worthy of rebuke, well I can't change your admittedly feeble mind. In the meantime, feel free to read about photography and the 1st amendment. You might actually learn something.

http://www.firstamendmentcente...

Trump is enabled by the government though

We all are. This is not about Trump. Anybody — poor, well off, and super rich alike — can and do sue for defamation. These are all civil suits and have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Your misconception is common — fustakrakich above has posted the same stupidity, for example — but a misconception it is:

This freedom, however, does not immunize them from liability for what they publish. A newspaper that publishes false information about a person, for example, can be sued for libel. A television station similarly can be sued if it broadcasts a story that unlawfully invades a person’s privacy.

allows someone rich to bankrupt people they don't like

The assholes and bitches seeking to ban "hate speech" would not merely bankrupt people they don't like — they'd put them in prison by making such expressions a felony. And the assholes and bitches would not spend their own money on it either — crimes are prosecuted by the government.

even if they don't win

I keep saying, we ought to have the losers of lawsuits being automatically ordered to compensate the winners legal expenses...

Another pro-censorship post!

You (and the cartoonist) must be one of the 34%... Physically restraining a person from speaking is assault.

Long story short, while the Court allows some restriction of obscenity, it doesn't really like the concept of obscenity or restrictions on speech in general.

There's a neat writeup on it here: http://www.firstamendmentcente...

I hope you're right, but SCOTUS says money is speech and people are still compelled to pay money.

The issue of compelled speech is not completely settled either. The courts have ruled both that it can be and that it can't be depending on circumstances.

http://www.firstamendmentcente...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

If the claim is false, it could be a felony in Minnesota, where the student attended school. This is according to the collection of state regulations at http://www.firstamendmentcente... . For Minnesota, the relevant statutes are Minn. Stat. 609.765 and Minn. Stat. 609.77. The young man could get up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $3000.

Next you'll be arguing that ISPs aren't allowed to block email spam and known phishing sites either because "net neutrality".

Yes, as a matter of fact, this would be another manifestation of unintended consequence of government's mis- and micromanagement of the ISPs. Unless the laws has special provisions for such abuse-fighting, any sort of blocking — however legitimate 2 years ago — would now be illegal. And I doubt it has such provisions, because legally defining spam — as opposite to some kind of "hey stranger" speech — is notoriously difficult.

And god forbid they do anything at all to stop a DoS attack... because that would require treating some packets unequally.

Indeed. And it will suck — if NetFlix decides to offer some sort of "1 free week of HD special" for non-subscribers, DoS may be exactly how it will appear to the ISPs.

Examples where creators have attempted to exert control without copying having occurred, where it is unreasonable to give creators said control

It may seem unreasonable to you, but you aren't the creator — and so your opinion does not matter. You can take the offered conditions or reject them — along with the creation itself. The only legitimate recourse for you is to pretend the creation was never created — if the strings attached by the creator to its use really are "unreasonable", they will not sell too many and either go bust or change their conditions. A self-regulating problem...

Distinguishing the limits on copying and other limits makes no difference. Just as I said...

Parody

Yes, some uses are allowed by our very liberal reading of the First Amendment (I wish, we read the Second just as liberally, but I digress). Limiting everything else is fine — as long as I am not legally bound to pay for/use the creation, of course...

The right to make rape threats is more important than the right to not receive rape threats? Are you sure?

Yes. American law is clear that the right to make death threats is more important than the right to not receive death threats, provided that those death threats are political speech and not "true threats" that explicitly call for or promise imminent lawless action. Rape threats are not as bad as death threats. (If you believe that rape is a fate worse than death, that rape survivors would be better off dead, please go shoot yourself in the head.) So if the right to make death threats is more important than the right to not receive death threats, clearly the right to make rape threats is more important than the right to not receive rape threats.

Is it socially acceptable to make death threats or rape threats? No. If you see people doing it, tell them they're being assholes and to cut it out. Mod them down. Ban them from your forum. Don't invite them to the party. But it's a big jump from there to have the state point guns at some immature asshole punk who blows his top in a flamewar and says "I'm gonna rape you to death!"

Threatening to rape or kill someone isn't "being offensive" it's fucking illegal, you worthless clown.

Hyperbolic speech that includes vague threats of death is not illegal. One must cross the line to be a "true threat" before First Amendment protections no longer apply.

What part of "well fucking regulated" don't you understand?

Which part of "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" don't you understand, citizen?

By your own logic, you don't have a right to any other speech — not to advertise anything, not to produce pornography, not to organize boycotts. Not even political campaign speeches are a right under your reading of the Bill of Rights — unless they are addressed to the sitting government as a form of a petition. If, of course, your thinking is self-consistent, and you are reading the First Amendment with the same literal strictness you are applying to the Second.

And by the logic of others of your kind, your Constitutionally-protected speech is limited to the means available in the 18th century too — even if you are merely petitioning the government, you don't have a right to do that via the Internet, TV, or radio.

What case was it that SCOTUS rules it was protected speech? As far as I can tell, they haven't.

You are confused or something too. The US constitution does not bar me from anything. It bars the government and it's agencies. If I have a first amendment right to anything, nothing else in the constitution would limit that. I can post a sign saying subject to search upon entering and proceed to search you when you enter my house or business without ever violating the constitution. It is done every day.

..or would you recognize that as a gross abuse of free speech, much like your plan to make political donations illegal? Seriously, why don't you stop trying to undermine the 1st Amendment?

Exactly... If they want to restrict speech, they must amend the constitution. However, more and more people are starting to agree that the 1st amendment "goes too far", so repealing or severely restricting it should be an easy go. Lessig is barking up the wrong tree without a paddle.

Why would -any- copy demand a citizen turn off his or her video/audio recording device if they "have nothing to hide"? It's because they don't want their asinine behaviour to be broadcasted on Youtube and entered as evidence in their/your trial. -They- want control of the evidence to ensure your conviction/their exoneration. How many times have we heard "oh, the cameras weren't working" when it benefited law enforcement?
Check out the case of this man convicted and sent to jail for recording police. He was convicted by a jury (idiots, that disgusts me), but the judge stated "In our Republic, the actions of public officials taken in their public capacities are not protected from exposure. Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police."

All officials of all branches of all government must be scrutinized at all times. Without scrutiny we most certainly will fall into tyranny (assuming we already haven't).

Also, Texas law can't have a more restrictive definition of "threat" than the US Supreme Court. Here's a long article on it:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats

Which makes them fucked up.. The key word is 'suspected', not confirmed or any other hard evidence. These strikes are murder. There is no other way to describe it.

Remember, these are the same people who think the 1st Amendment goes too far... We see it in practice with the press's timidity on the issue. Fascism permeates...

You clearly know more than him, so what were they actually protesting about?

The leaders of these things are hired actors. The Muslims aren't the only ones that want to curtail freedom of expression. The people that manipulate so-called democratic governments want exactly the same thing. They are working on Americans to make them believe the first amendment goes too far. They exploit primal emotion to incite others who can't control themselves with great promises of eternal glory.

stop calling me a fascist like an immature teenager whose dad told him he can't have the car keys, and try to understand the laws of your own country

i'm not arguing with you, because you're not arguing with me. you're arguing with the founding fathers and the laws of your own country:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats

The First Amendment protects a wide swath of expression that many of us may find offensive, distasteful or even repugnant. The government cannot silence and punish speakers just because it dislikes their expression. Oftentimes, the First Amendment protects the flag-burner, the tobacco advertiser, the pornographer and the hateful speaker.
However, First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say “I am going to kill you” or to announce in an airport, “I am going to bomb this plane.”

do you understand?

do you really?

Because that is the type of comment that gets made around the globe untold times every day. A statistically insignificant portion of them actually mean it.

citation please

You simply can't expect police to investigate every time someone makes these types of remarks.

yes, we can. says the well-established law of the land i live in

There's a clear, common sense difference between homicidal hostility and frustrated venting.

you're right, it's something like the difference between saying "i'm so frustrated" and "i am going to kill someone"

Otherwise, diverting resources to investigate such things to other, more fruitful goals would surely bring a greater benefit to society.

i think a fruitful goal of society would be punishing those who make threats of violence, thereby minimizing violence in society, which is a better society. some of those threats are not real. for those dumbasses, they will have learned a valuable lesson about the difference between free speech and threatening someone else's freedom to life and limb

but you're not arguing with me. you're just shooting the messenger. you're arguing with well-established law of your country, which i am fruitlessly attempting to interpret for someone who refuses to understand logic and reason on the topic:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats

The First Amendment protects a wide swath of expression that many of us may find offensive, distasteful or even repugnant. The government cannot silence and punish speakers just because it dislikes their expression. Oftentimes, the First Amendment protects the flag-burner, the tobacco advertiser, the pornographer and the hateful speaker.
However, First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say “I am going to kill you” or to announce in an airport, “I am going to bomb this plane.”

i clearly have a better grasp on the concept of free speech than you do

but i'm not going to argue with you anymore, you are clearly a crackpot

rather than argue with me, whom you envision as some avatar of fascism when in reality everything i say comes from a love of and better understanding of freedom than you, you should try arguing against the laws of your own country:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/true-threats

grow a brain, halfwit. i better understand freedoms, my understanding protects freedoms better than you (such as the freedom to life and limb), and i have a better grasp on the founding fathers true intent

but, as i said, i'm not going to argue with you anymore

because you're just shooting the messenger

you're not arguing with me. you're arguing with the established law and the intents of the founding fathers of your own country

The government doesn't like demonstrations. I was at the '08 DNC, inside the 'Freedom Cage' - they're just catching up with the tech trends. The question is, what definition will they hold for "disruption" and "public" - icydrta - "the filing contends that that "balance" must "resonate" in any wireless communications shutdown policy. The Commission should understand that certain situations could present a "credible threat," says the group, and thus, "Interrupting wireless service, when balanced against the disruption to the public, may be a reasoned alternative to consider." "

See, something like this sort of happened before and when the University of CA systesm was sued, the judge dimissed it.

When TN students start getting rejection letters from accredited universities or at the very least colleges that understand that this is the 21st Century, maybe they'll change their tune.

This also happened with Kansas when one of their school boards banned teaching of evolution and California told their students to not even apply to their schools.

In the meantime, the rest of the World - even die hard theocratic countries - are pushing science educatoin. China is already on our heels when it comes scientifc progress.

Religious fundamentalism is destroying science education in this country - and giving everyone else of faith a bad name.

I'm unmodding by posting this.

Please remember that this is Michigan, which is the same state that took one hundred and five years to eliminate a law that prohibited using foul language in the presence of women and children -- a law that stood on the books until 2002. A law under which a man was successfully convicted after the canoe he was traveling in hit a rock and dumped him (and presumably, his stuff) into the drink, producing the sort of surprise and inconvenience that I think would cause most people to get awfully profane for a few minutes as they swim around trying to gather their shit up (or more likely, get their "fucking shit" out of the "goddamned water," after having the "fucking boat" hit a "motherfucking piece-of-shit dick-taking rock," perhaps with repeated nonsensical utterances about the "fucking asshole thing").

At least in the case of the cussing canoeist, sanity eventually prevailed. Unfortunately, it took about four years for this to happen, between citation and dismissal.

My dad doesn't cuss. Ever. He certainly knows how, as his vocabulary is very prolific. But I've heard him do it twice: Once, when a large limb he was cutting out of a tree nearly fell (variously) on the neighbor's pool, the overhead power lines, or my house -- just before it tried to kill him (it failed). The other time was after we had unexpectedly exited a canoe on the Mohican. :)

Close. The "clear and present danger" test was obsoleted by Brandenburg v. Ohio, in favor of the "intent, imminence, likelihood" test. See http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21677

But you're right on the whole.

I wondered if you would trot out section 793 of the Espionage Act, an overly broad statute from 1917!
I can see why you sympathize with the govt, you have something in common, neither of you can be bothered to read the constitution, observe.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=1011_SCT_tracker
Here is a link to cases involving the 1st amendment I would like to specifically direct you to the United States vs The New York Times (403 U.S. 713)
Oh, and I'm sorry, I clearly asked for several items from you in my previous post. Did you need more time? I will await your no doubt brilliant reply.
I must ask though, how exactly does it feel to be on the side of lying. Of sophistry, of half truths and innuendo? I am not being glib, what on earth could possess a man to defend a govt lying to its people. THEY are supposed to work for US, not the other way around. Having read everything that wikileaks has published, the real crime is that they keep lying about how the war is going, the material and physical cost. Do you know what the greatest deterrent to war is? The fact thats its so terrible..... but we don't get that do we?

Tell that to Facebook in regard to Lamebook.

This is an example of why the operator of a gripe site should avoid commercial activity; although parodies are protected under The First Amendment, the target of parody could argue that the gripe site is no longer parody and instead is a profit making venture. That doesn't mean that their argument will be successful, but it does provide some legal ammo and is not as cut-and-dried as the treatment of a non-commercial gripe site.

Here's a good write-up on parody as it relates to free speech and copyright: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire .

I hadn't heard of this case before; with a little searching I found this page which sheds a little more light on it:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12391
In short, a crazy "prophet" had made several threats (online and by fax) prior to the bar joke, where he talked about throwing gasoline and a match on Bush. Would he have actually done it? I don't know. But it's certainly more than just a joke in a bar, or a re-tweet.

Seriously, is it a wiki? How else to explain this bit of SCOTUS trivia:

Recent broadcast indecency cases involving the brief display of Janet Jackson’s breast at the Super Bowl and the use of the F-word by Sonny Bono and Nicole Richie at the Billboard Music awards ...

Sonny Bono? Really?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography

It depends. Not all speech is protected:

# Obscenity
# Fighting words
# Defamation (includes libel, slander)
# Child pornography
# Perjury
# Blackmail
# Incitement to imminent lawless action
# True threats
# Solicitations to commit crimes# Obscenity
# Fighting words
# Defamation (includes libel, slander)
# Child pornography
# Perjury
# Blackmail
# Incitement to imminent lawless action
# True threats
# Solicitations to commit crimes

Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/faqs.aspx?id=15822

FBI monitoring library records in terror probe (By The Associated Press)
But, of course, it hasn't been used, they say.Authority to obtain library records hasn't been used, Ashcroft says (By The Associated Press)

Here's an interesting link

The answer to your question is at the bottom. You can see it's not an easy answer, because there is a long history of this question. I would have thought that me threatening to kill you was not proteced speech.

It may not be; but apparently you can say, "we're going to break your neck if you do X" at a rally, and it's protected.

Now, let's put this thread to rest, or I'll personally come to your house and burn it down.

So here's one of the top links from your search, which you seem to be quoting from. It says:

"However, First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. There are several unprotected categories of expression, including but not limited to fighting words, obscenity, extortion, perjury and false advertising. Another unprotected category is the true threat. The First Amendment does not give a person the right to walk up to someone else and say 'I am going to kill you' or to announce in an airport, 'I am going to bomb this plane.'"

This directly contradicts your original statement:

The Supreme Court of the US has even ruled that death threats are protected speech, unless the issuer of the threat is carrying a gun or knife. But simply walking up to someone (say a KKK guy) and saying, "I hate racist mother fuckers and I'm going to kill you" is protected speech if said person is unarmed.

The Watts case was about political hyperbole, and it wasn't considered a death threat. So when asked to provide specific citations, your original claims do not hold up.

You might look at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21412 which addresses a related issue, cyberbullying, but comes to the point here with comments about limitations of freedom of speech in Canada:

"In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), the court held that a good reputation is closely related to the innate worthiness and dignity of the individual. Therefore, reputation must be protected in the same way as freedom of expression under Section 2(b). The court noted that a reputation tarnished by libel can seldom regain its formal luster. Accordingly, society has an interest in ensuring its members enjoy and protect their good reputation so long as it is merited. Along similar lines, in the case of Newman et al v. Halstead (2006), an adult was held liable for $676,000 for posting derogatory comments about teachers online."

I believe this was a civil action and it seems to me that the police would be likely to succeed in such a case. However, the Calgary Police would have to do their own work on it with the City of Calgary and the individuals named bringing the legal action forward instead of having the RCMP bring charges. BTW IANAL, just a beer-hazy nerd.

There might even by some "hate-crime" legislation that could be used.

Curious that they chose to follow the criminal law path.

I can answer this for you.

"NO."

Remember that study that was done a few years ago where highschool students across the country were asked questions like "do you think freedom of speech should be limited?" and "does the press have too much freedom of the press?". An overwhelming number of students (the future of the country, yadda yadda yadda) stated things siding with restricting freedom of the press and limiting free speech.

This country has no sense of the liberties they are supposed to value. It only knows platitudes and threats. That's why the market for yellow ribbon stickers on the back of SUVs is booming and criticizing anything that the government or military says or does is responded with some variation on "you want the terrorists to win?!" or "this is America! Love it or leave it!".

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837/
source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-01-30-students-press_x.htm

One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.

Asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about the right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount. Ten percent say it has too little.

This is not the same study, but has similarly sad results:

source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031

The First Amendment Center has conducted the annual survey since 1997. This year’s survey, being released to mark both annual Constitution Day (Sept. 17) activities and the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, also found:

        * Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000.
        * 58% of Americans would prevent protests during a funeral procession, even on public streets and sidewalks; and 74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others.
        * 34% (lowest since the survey first was done in 1997) think the press “has too much freedom,” but 60% of Americans disagree with the statement that the press tries to report the news without bias, and 62% believe the making up of stories is a widespread problem in the news media — down only slightly from 2006.
        * 25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.

"Please dont display US propaganda as being real." O Rly?
http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/0822gunsketch22-on.html - Student suspended for sketching gun

http://www.crystalair.com/story.php?id=200912008 - Boy Suspended For Drawing Jesus Shooting Santa With Gun

http://guyism.com/2010/03/kindergarten-student-suspended-for-making-gun-with-fingers.html

http://guyism.com/2010/02/fourth-grader-punished-for-2-inch-lego-gun.html

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12519 - The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal filed on behalf of a New Jersey boy suspended from school almost four years ago after a playground game of cops and robbers.

intentionally misrepresenting someone as something that is patently false is libel or slander depending on how it is done. This is a criminal offense.

What country are you from? First of all, libel is not a criminal offense in the U.S. (or most other democratic countries). Libel hasn't been a criminal matter since the American Revolution.

Libel is a civil offense, and the subject of the libel is limited to suing for damages in civil court.

Second of all, intentionally misrepresenting someone for purposes of satire and parody is specifically protected by the First Amendment and the Supreme Court. If the claims are so outrageous that no reasonable person would believe them, there's no libel. The more outrageous the claims, the weaker the case for libel.

The leading case is Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell. Falwell sued Hustler for an advertisement parody that portrayed him as having had a drunken sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire

As the judge said in TFA, you can make it a teachable moment. People in the U.S. have a right to satirize figures of authority. Satire can be painful, but that's the price we pay for a free society.

But if neither dominant party thinks she's toeing the line enough then that's _exactly_ the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.

Your logic is broken. I presume neither party would like bin Laden, but I don't think that would make him a good nomination. Have you heard why people don't like her? Here's some of her thoughts on the first amendment:

Kagan argued in the government’s brief that speech was entitled to no First Amendment protection if its harms outweigh its benefits: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” Kagan did not argue the case before the Court.

Someone who feels that freedom of speech is overrated - spare me the "fire! in a theater" exceptions we already know about - is not someone who I want deciding freedom of speech cases.

She also argued that prosecutors who deliberately manufacture evidence to convict (by definition) innocent people should not be civilly liable for their actions. I don't have great hopes that she'd side with individuals when it most matters.

It seems like there's something for everyone to dislike about Kagan, unless you're already a person in power and seeking to extend your powers. Then she'd be the woman for the job.

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.

Did you even read the articles you linked? Theses are exactly the cases that I was talking about. Those are about school sponsorship of prayer, student-lead prayer at school events, the moment of silence in class, and use of school property for religious purposes. So snide remarks aside, you aren't exactly showing me anything I didn't already refer to.

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

I see one article that refers to graduation ceremonies, and it's the one that the school agreed to ban proselytizing and prayer in the ceremonies. Are you sure you read these?

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

If you write God with the capital G, it's a proper noun. So you're referring to a specific person, place or thing. In this case, a specific god. You do understand what a proper noun is don't you?

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

As I said, the court's ruling was simply an appeal to tradition and a refusal to review it. The dissenting opinion by Stephen Reinhardt clearly shows, through their own statements, that the congressmen supporting the bill were doing it for religious reasons. From the dissent:

"The majority argues that the purpose of the amendment of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 was not predominantly religious because the words “under God” are simply a reference to the limited powers of our national government. That is, of course, an argument dreamt up by my colleagues that can nowhere be found in the Congressional Record. In addition, my colleagues have apparently forgotten that it is the Constitution that sets forth the limitations on government powe

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19256
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19517
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19256
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19517
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19256
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19517
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st

> Limiting advertising is a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Duh. You can't do it.

You might want to check with the Supreme Court on that one. Granted, I don't always agree with their decisions, but commercial speech has LONG been more restricted than, say, political speech. In particular, the government has more leeway to restrict the time, place and manner that advertisements are allowed in (e.g. "you can't post advertisements on public property" or "you can't make deceptive advertisements" [1]).

In other words, leaving aside whether or not one interprets it as being in violation of the 1st Amendment, the government can and has done so.

Given that prohibiting "loud" advertisements would be a restriction on the manner of speech and that TV broadcasts are already regulated because the EM spectrum is considered public property, you would have to be a very clever lawyer with some fairly sympathetic judges to get this tossed out on Constitutional grounds.

And very clever lawyers? They would cite lots of case law, have tons of footnotes, and would not use the word "duh" (at least, not in public).[2]

[1] The Central Hudson test says that to decide whether commercial speech gets first amendment protection has the judge consider whether:
      1. The expression of commercial speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading.
      2. The asserted government interest is substantial.
      3. The regulation directly advances the asserted government interest.
      4. The regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.

[2] IANAL, but I know better than to make ad hoc pronouncements about the Constitution, as though its meaning were unambiguous and its wisdom infallible.

Peaceably. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/overview.aspx

Course, when LRAD and the tear gas and concussion grenades are coming in, things get a lot less peaceful looking with all the running around screaming, in turn justifying the LRAD, tear gas, and concussion grenades. Fiendishly clever in its simplicity.

Peaceably.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/overview.aspx

Hate speech, especially published hate speech, serves no purpose other than to degrade, criminalize or deter a particular person, race, or gender. The same could be said about blond jokes... that doesn't stop them from being funny!

My understanding of US law is that you have a right to voice an opinion that members of any group are inferior, stupid, smelly or whatever. It is only when you advocate taking unlawful action against members of a group that it becomes a hate crime. Hence The KKK had a right to march in Skokie Illinois. For the most part I agree with this principle that you have a right to free speech, but not threatening speech. However, I believe that if you don the regalia of groups with a history of violence against members of another group (e.g. KKK or SS uniforms) then anything you do carries an implicit threat of violence, and thus becomes "hate speech". Saying blonds are dimwitted is protected speech. Saying we should all get together and shave their heads is hate speech, and should subject one to legal penalties. As far as language that degrades a particular person, race, or gender-- fuck you if you can't take a joke! "Criminalizing" others should rightfully be unlawful, but I'm pretty sure only the government can "criminalize" something -- not a private individual or blogger. "Detering" someone involves coercion, again there is an implicit threat involved, so again it should rightfully be unlawful. Referring to someone with a derogatory term should not be illegal, but certainly isn't going to win you much sympathy when you get your ass kicked for doing so.

The canonical example of this is the Ford autobiography. A 300-word-excerpt from a lengthy book was ruled not to be fair use, because it severely reduced the market for the book. The only reason anyone would buy Gerald Ford's autobiography/memoirs (no offense) was to find out "Why'd you pardon Nixon?". Since the 300 excerpted words included the answer to that question, the use was not found to be fair.

Now, that's US law, not EU law, but that's the principle involved - an excerpt that's short but captures "the heart of the work." "Luke, I am your father" does not encompass the heart of "Empire Strikes Back". It spoils a major twist, but doesn't really satisfy the desire to watch the movie.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if a short excerpt destroys the demand for your work, then obviously your work wasn't worth a whole book or movie or article in the first place.

That's a very one-sided view of Sotomayor's record on constitutional issues. I share your concerns but I think she's very much a case-by-case jurist and concluding from these cases that she's a "constitutional nightmare" is a bit extreme. Here's a much more detailed and careful rundown of her first amendment rulings than the link you gave, which only mentions the infamous "douchebag" decision. I agree that's a pretty sad decision in terms of student first amendment rights, but she's also got the Guiles v. Marineau case to her credit on the same issue (the difference being the latter more obviously dealt with clearly political speech). I agree Sotomayor raises cause for concern, but calling her a "constitutional nightmare" is a bit hysterical.

Relevant case law:

Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA Penguin Books published a poetic account of the O.J. Simpson trial in a book titled, The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice. The 9th Circuit held that the book did not parody The Cat in the Hat, but simply retold the Simpson story. Therefore, there was no fair-use defense, and the book was deemed a copyright infringement.