Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader

[Warren DeMontague]

73. I think if you're actually interested in the subject, you might consider actually reading some of

the relevant decisions which HAVE BEEN made on the topic, several of which have been referenced for you in this thread.

That will tell you all you need to know about the 1st Amendment and the well-established body of current legal precedent surrounding it. Because how did we get here, and by "here" I mean why am I in this subthread with you? We got here because you were trying to suggest that a noxiously offensive and bigoted bus ad was somehow an "incitement" which was not protected by the 1st Amendment.

You were wrong, and every other example you've tried to dredge up to back up your position has either been likewise wrong (to wit, again, stuff like Holocaust Denial IS protected by the 1st Amendment, and so is "hate speech&quot or else it has been wildly off-topic, from assaults on people wearing turbans to the dissemination of classified material, neither of which has anything to do with "incendiary" bus ads.

Now, back on the original topic, I'm not convinced there isn't some other rationale by which the bus system could control the content of their ads- however, those ads ARE absolutely protected 1A speech.

And if pointing this stuff out means "I think free speech should be limitless" -uh, okay - although I hardly think that recognizing the established legal fact that hateful speech and bigoted speech and even totally inflammatory or bigoted bus ads are protected by the 1A is some sort of craaaaaaazy radical position (another "only on DU" moment, I guess)... I don't need to be a judge, although how do you know I'm not? no matter, the position I'm articulating is already hard-baked into several decades of supreme court precedence, or more.

The 1st Amendment is a bedrock principle for liberty, and it is an indictment of our educational system that so many don't understand it.