Forums | MacLife

ahh so you have to go to a designated zone to speak freely...

yup.. that's free

Partisanship or Principles? Your choice.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

I bet you guys wouldn't care were it not for the free speech zone used by the administration, which y'all wailed about. So you have to complain now, or your bias shows.

Free speech zones make sense. They make a lot of sense, they avoid anarchy and still allow the voice of dissent to be heard.

The guarantee the right to free speech of those whom the dissenters often want to silence with their yelling.

It completely depends on the specifics of the "zone" involved.  The term itself is rather meaningless.

In principle, do you think it's okay to restrict the expression of political protest, whatever the label?

Farmerkev wrote:

AS long as it's only a time and place restriction, I do.

Are there any statutes covering this procedure? That is to say, what laws prevent the government from expanding the use of these absurdly-named restrictions beyond the times and places you think are just fine?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

AS long as it's only a time and place restriction, I do.

Are there any statutes covering this procedure? That is to say, what laws prevent the government from expanding the use of these absurdly-named restrictions beyond the times and places you think are just fine?

The SC ruling gave the guidelines.
It's been tested.

You'd flunk out of law school with cites like that.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In principle, do you think it's okay to restrict the expression of political protest, whatever the label?

Sure, as long as there's a good reason to restrict it and there are ample alternative venues that are comparable (such as on the sidewalk as opposed to blocking the street or entrance to a building).

Lots of cases.

Sometime in about ... oh, 1995 ... I was in college and went to the state capitol building of Iowa because I figured it would be a good place to take some pictures for an art class project. Unbeknownst to me there was a big protest of some sort scheduled that day, so the place was crowded as hell. I can't recall all the details (because I didn't really give a smurf about them at the time or since) but it had something to do with gambling and casinos, etc. Anyway, this guy was standing around me, saw me doodling on a sketch pad, started a conversation, right? I even sketched a quick picture of him. 15 or 20 minutes later the guy was imposing himself on the TV news crew that was present, rambling on about how it was "all about the money" and such, when the cameraman forced him out of the shot ... told him to get lost or whatever. I kind of gave up on the idea of real free speech right then and there. You'd think if someone had something to say the cameraman would have been zooming in on them. Nothing says if you're filming an event you have to show every little detail on the news in the final cut, right? I honestly wanted to just knock that cameraman out and shove his camcorder (or whatever it was back then) up his smurfing ass, but I just didn't. My point here is that the genesis of the "Free Speech Zone" concept probably comes as much from the media not wanting protesters in their video frames as much as the government not wanting the protesters to be heard. After all, there is plenty of protesting going around and the government has to be aware of it. It just makes for bad TV is all.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Would "free speech zones" still be required if the demonstrations could be guaranteed to be supportive rather than critical?

An unrealistic scenario but you certainly have a point.  Demonstrations tend to be unwelcome by those they're directed against.

That's why the government needs to have a damn good reason for the restriction and it has to be narrowly tailored to that end.  It has certainly overreached with these "zones" in some instances, in my view.

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Are there any statutes covering this procedure? That is to say, what laws prevent the government from expanding the use of these absurdly-named restrictions beyond the times and places you think are just fine?

The SC ruling gave the guidelines.
It's been tested.

You'd flunk out of law school with cites like that.

This isn't law school, a court of law or a friggin debate society with rules.
It's a pissant web forum, he's got Google and he knows damn good and well.
This is about something else and we know what that is.

bratboy wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Two words: "Strict Scrutiny."

Strict scrutiny is for content based restrictions.  Content neutral restrictions are subjected to a rational basis test.

I should really stop playing lawyer.

Freedom of expression, especially expression of political views, ranks near the top of the hierarchy of constitutional rights. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24 (1971). That freedom "is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests." Id.

The right to freedom of expression is secured principally by the First Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. I. Despite the importance of that right, the prophylaxis of the First Amendment is not without limits. Reasonable restrictions as to the time, place, and manner of speech in public fora are permissible, provided that those restrictions "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)).

A regulation is narrowly tailored if "the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government's interest." Id. at 800. To satisfy this benchmark, a regulation need not be the least restrictive alternative available to the government. Id. at 798-99. Put another way, the validity of time, place, or manner regulations is not subject to "'a judge's agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting significant government interests' or the degree to which those interests should be promoted." Id. at 800 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689 (1985)).

An inquiry into the validity of time-place-manner regulations generally commands what we have termed "intermediate scrutiny." Nat'l Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 736 (1st Cir. 1995). In this case, however, the appellant endeavors to ratchet up this level of scrutiny by characterizing the security measures (particularly the total prohibition of demonstrations in the hard zone) as a prior restraint on speech. We reject this approach: here, the City has not sought to prevent speech, but, rather, to regulate the place and manner of its expression. The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected attempts to analyze security-based time-place-manner restrictions as prior restraints, see, e.g., Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 733-34 (2000); Schenk v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 374 n.6 (1997); Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 763 n.2 (1994), and those cases are controlling here. If content-neutral prohibitions on speech at certain places were deemed prior restraints, the intermediate standard of review prescribed in the time-place-manner jurisprudence would be eviscerated.

Black Tea Society v City of Boston  (2004)

Hmm, the ACLU's reproductive rights project appears to have borne some fruit.

Last edited by jerwin (2008-07-01 10:41 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

The SC ruling gave the guidelines.
It's been tested.

You'd flunk out of law school with cites like that.

This isn't law school, a court of law or a friggin debate society with rules.
It's a pissant web forum, he's got Google and he knows damn good and well.
This is about something else and we know what that is.

Truth hurts, eh?

In fairness, however, I did fail to find these magical supreme court rulings of yours. Quite the contrary, there are several that indicate the contrary view. Check out Bratty's wiki link, for example; the "notable incidents and court proceedings" section, for example.

Actually some of the stuff in that link, including some of the cases mentioned, should really disturb you.

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

You'd flunk out of law school with cites like that.

This isn't law school, a court of law or a friggin debate society with rules.
It's a pissant web forum, he's got Google and he knows damn good and well.
This is about something else and we know what that is.

Google for my response, then.

I don't have too, I already know the standards.