Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader [View all]daredtowork
(3,732 posts)103. It's not disagreement
Unless you're absolutely certain of the outcome. I already know the KKK is free to hold public marches, and the ACLU defended their right to do that. So I wouldn't bet on "my" side of this argument. But I would like to see it reviewed, and I do think it's possible.
There's always the chance the same Supreme Court that decided Money=Speech could make a poor decision about limits on the First Amendment that would then require a lot of activism and further cases to undo/overthrow.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
144 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader [View all]
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
OP
You're certainly welcome to place ads that refer to Jew-hating in the New Testament,
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#6
Actually, I think you're vastly misinformed about the 1st Amendment, and you're also dragging out a
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#35
I get your drift - and you are saying this is "KKK giving march down mainstreet"
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#41
I didn't realize that the criteria of 'truth' was 'longevity at DU'. But no problem, now I know.
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#143
I think it's more difficult than that to determine the limits of free speech
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#33
you have the 1st Amendment right to 'deliberate' about it all you want.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#36
Saying something offensive - even REALLY offensive - is not screaming fire in a crowded theater
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#53
You must have stopped following the First Amendment sometime in the 1920s I guess
onenote
Mar 2015
#58
My view is not that narrow - I'm outraged over how easy it is for corps to get away with SLAPP cases
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#61
I think if you're actually interested in the subject, you might consider actually reading some of
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#73
Again, it's not a reading list. It's SCOTUS decisions specifically pertaining to "incitement".
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#78
There's no privacy being violated when someone says "all frimhatzes are big stinky warbnozzles"
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#83
The privacy law doesn't have to be the specific "other law" in this case. nt
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#86
You seem to think that decided questions of law should still be brought for a judge every time.
onenote
Mar 2015
#112
Well people on both sides of the aisle take turns squealing about free speech
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#40
If you read those decisions, they were written by judges. On the supreme court.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#75
Okay, then, serious answer? Talk to a lawyer. Or talk to several lawyers.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#91
Brandenburg v. Ohio. Also Street v. New York (1969) Cohen v. California (71) Gooding v. Wilson (74)
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#68
A noose in the workplace could be a direct threat of bodily harm, for one.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#82
I think the answer is, pretty clearly, only a direct threat constitutes an actual direct threat.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#92
Well we're gonna have to disagree. But I suggest you take it up with experts in the law.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#99
There is no chance this Supreme Court is going to expand what constitutes incitement
onenote
Mar 2015
#108
The same level of Jew hating is found in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," for
KingCharlemagne
Mar 2015
#76
It's even scarier that guys like you are constantly projecting on to everyone else
daredtowork
Mar 2015
#93
I'm not familiar with that site, just picked it at random from the Google results.
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#14
i tried googling for the article and photo using various search terms but couldn't
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#16
interesting. I don't get any 'human events' results on the front page (haven't looked at
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#18
Didn't show up 4th, or 6th, or even on the front page when I googled it. And it's
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#129
Well, I suppose someone could always do a "Jews killed our savior" bus ad.
Comrade Grumpy
Mar 2015
#8
and officials of various faith groups, ethnicities, and nationalities cooperated with the
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#13
in the torah too; they're all 3 variations on the same texts and they all share the
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#51
I'd like to see some group try getting hate ads for other groups on. It would be
ND-Dem
Mar 2015
#133
So we should do away with all public fora an only allow speech on private property?
onenote
Mar 2015
#65
Squaring the circle: Israel is operating its own system of apartheid in
KingCharlemagne
Mar 2015
#84
I don't see how the 1st Ammendment necessary implies that people need to be provided with a platform
redgreenandblue
Mar 2015
#101
The status of advertising on publicly owned buses under the public forum doctrine is contentious
onenote
Mar 2015
#115
Interesting. I was thinking it was more complicated than "this is free speech".
redgreenandblue
Mar 2015
#122
Whether its the OU incident, the Logan Act, charging Ernst with an Article 88 violation
onenote
Mar 2015
#125
I can see this being "discrimination at the work place" against Muslim bus drivers and therefore
redgreenandblue
Mar 2015
#121