Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |
Post New
Author: onepoorguy 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 48489 
Subject: attacking the 1st Amendment
Date: 02/22/2023 7:39 PM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 0
And the spiral down continues. DeSantis wants to limit gatherings at the capital (FL) only to groups that "align" with his goals.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/22/desantis-...

I know the feds can't do that, and I believe the reconstruction amendments made it so that the states can't do it either (if albaby is still here, he may scold me if I'm in error). I expect a SCOTUS challenge if those "rule changes" are enforced.
Print the post


Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 48489 
Subject: Re: attacking the 1st Amendment
Date: 02/23/2023 10:24 AM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 5
I know the feds can't do that, and I believe the reconstruction amendments made it so that the states can't do it either (if albaby is still here, he may scold me if I'm in error). I expect a SCOTUS challenge if those "rule changes" are enforced.

No scolding - that's generally right.

What the state seems to be trying to do is convert the Capitol building from a limited public forum to a forum for solely government speech. Y'see, First Amendment protections available to speakers in a particular public space depend a great deal on how the government has designated that space to be used (either directly or through tradition). In SCOTUS jargon, a public space can be a public forum, a limited public forum, or a nonpublic forum.

Public fora are your "classic" places where anyone can say anything out to the outer limits of the First Amendment. The soapbox in the corner of the public park, or the sidewalk. Government cannot limit your ability to say anything you want based on either content or viewpoint. Some are created by tradition (and can't be changed), but the government can create and designate public fora as well - if they open up a room in a community center for anyone to use, then they can't discriminate based on content or viewpoint.

At the other end of the spectrum are nonpublic fora, like military bases or prisons. These are government facilities, but they are **not** places where the government is making those spaces available for speech. Government can - and does - severely limit the ability of individuals to speak in those places. In many instances, the government is the only entity that is allowed to use those areas for speech.

Florida knows that it can't censor a public forum or limited public forum based on viewpoint. What it can do is prohibit any private parties from using a particular area for their own speech, and instead limit the area for the government's own speech. If the Capitol building is no longer available for private parties, but only state agencies, then a different analysis of free speech will apply.

Albaby
Print the post


Author: onepoorguy 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 48489 
Subject: Re: attacking the 1st Amendment
Date: 02/23/2023 3:10 PM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
I suppose he could do that. I was under the impression that, for example, anti-LGBTQ would not be granted permission, but Christian Avengers (note: made-up name) would be. If they restrict use for ALL groups, and only allow press conferences with public officials, I guess that's legit. Kind of unAmerican, but legit.
Print the post


Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 48489 
Subject: Re: attacking the 1st Amendment
Date: 02/23/2023 3:52 PM
Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 5
I suppose he could do that. I was under the impression that, for example, anti-LGBTQ would not be granted permission, but Christian Avengers (note: made-up name) would be. If they restrict use for ALL groups, and only allow press conferences with public officials, I guess that's legit. Kind of unAmerican, but legit.

The impression I got from the article is that they're trying to get a little cute about it.

Let's imagine that in the fictional U.S. state of Albabia, the Capitol Rotunda is (today) a designated public forum. Anyone can go there and say whatever they want. So a person can stand up there and make a speech encouraging young people not to smoke, proclaiming the evils of smoking and pointing out the health risks. But another person (say, Nick Naylor) can stand up there and make a speech about how smoking is awesome and cool and kids should be doing this. In fact, this Naylor guy keeps doing that - standing up with slick presentations about how Albabians should be smoking more and how awesome it is.

As Governor of Albabia, I'm annoyed at this situation. Albabia is officially against smoking. We spend literally millions of dollars on an youth-oriented anti-smoking campaign.* The state's Office of Tobacco Control spends even more on anti-smoking efforts - educational programs in school, enforcement against underage sales, you name it. I'm delighted that private anti-smoking crusaders like organizing protests against Big Tobacco in the Capitol Rotunda. But it seems ridiculous that Big Tobacco gets to use public property to push its pro-smoking agenda, when Albabia is literally doing everything it can to stop youth smoking.

So I come up with a fix. The Capitol Rotunda will no longer be a designated public forum. It will only be available for Albabian state agencies to put on programs and speeches and what not to promote the various policies and positions of the State of Albabia. But that will also include working with private parties, even soliciting suggestions from private parties, for those private parties to provide speakers and resources and content for those events.

So from now on, all requests for Rotunda space get passed through the agencies. Thus, when Mothers Against Smoking decides they want to protest against Big Tobacco, they file a request with the Office of Tobacco Control - and OTC determines that yes, that event is one that they want to use the Rotunda space for, and you get an official OTC event featuring the Mothers Against Smoking. But when Dastardly Nick Naylor shows up, we point out that OTC doesn't want to do an event promoting smoking - it's literally the opposite of what they do - so they're not going to sponsor that program.

That's probably too cute by half, and probably going to get shot down by the courts. But governments "speak" all the time. They're out there encouraging people to stay off drugs, not to litter, maybe exercise once in a while, visit the local tourist attractions, etc. They use government resources to promote those messages. They sometimes (often?) use private individuals and groups to help promote those messages (if I had a nickel for every Local Sports Celebrity encouraging me to Say No To Drugs as a lad....), effectively giving private individuals who agree with those messages a massive platform that's denied to people with contrary views. They don't have to give "equal access" to pro-drug, pro-litter, pro-sloth, or anti-tourist speakers.


*https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10848476/#:~:text=....
Print the post


Post New
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds