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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Demsrule86

(71,542 posts)
9. There can be restrictions
Tue Oct 24, 2017, 07:55 AM
Oct 2017

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated in Christian Knights of KKK v. District of Columbia10 that when using a public forum, "...speakers do not have a constitutional right to convey their message whenever, wherever and however they please."11

Accordingly, the government may regulate a marcher's use of the streets based on legitimate interests, such as: 1) Accommodating conflicting demands by potential users for the same place; 2) protecting those who are not interested onlookers, like a "captive audience" in a residential neighborhood, from the adverse collateral effects of the speech; and 3) protecting public order.

The court emphasized that a permit process cannot be used to "...impose even a place restriction on a speaker's use of a public forum on the basis of what the speaker will say, unless there is a compelling interest for doing so, and the restriction is necessary to serve the asserted compelling interest."12

The court ruled the city's denial of a permit request from the Ku Klux Klan to march 11 blocks and the resulting decision to limit the march to only 4 blocks was unconstitutionally based on anticipated listener reaction, which turns on the group marching, the message of the group, and the extent of antagonism, discord, and strife the march would generate.13

However, the court also held that a restriction based on the threat of violence could be constitutionally justified if that threat of violence is beyond reasonable control of the police.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

free speech has a cost, let any body speak anywhere as long as they post a cash bond beachbum bob Oct 2017 #1
SCOTUS has found that illegal obamanut2012 Oct 2017 #6
I don't think that is true, no place has an obligation to give "free security"... beachbum bob Oct 2017 #19
There is no reason they need to speak at either of these colleges ...an alternative site Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #8
A perhaps separate but just as.. equal place, right? X_Digger Oct 2017 #12
Very good point ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #29
If the universities have the right to charge to cover security, Ilsa Oct 2017 #2
The Westboro Baptist approach. LunaSea Oct 2017 #3
Lawyers Of DU ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #4
Maybe both. former9thward Oct 2017 #11
Thanks ProfessorGAC Oct 2017 #25
If they want to speak at these venues they should have to pay for their own security or blueinredohio Oct 2017 #5
SCOTUS has ruled that illegal obamanut2012 Oct 2017 #7
There can be restrictions Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #9
+1 dalton99a Oct 2017 #10
Free speech, yes, but nobody is required to give you a venue. alarimer Oct 2017 #13
If this venue is made available to other speakers, then yes, they have to allow shitstains like this X_Digger Oct 2017 #21
I don't care. alarimer Oct 2017 #23
Not a fan of the first amendment, I see. X_Digger Oct 2017 #24
I'm a big fan of the First Amendment atreides1 Oct 2017 #28
You're a fan of the first, but not when it applies to *some* people? X_Digger Oct 2017 #31
Who says? WinkyDink Oct 2017 #36
This will not end well. Initech Oct 2017 #14
Calling for "Ethnic Cleansing" is Hate Speech dlk Oct 2017 #15
Hate speech is speech GulfCoast66 Oct 2017 #16
Hate speech is legal mythology Oct 2017 #17
But still protected by the First Amendment. Dr. Strange Oct 2017 #18
true, but inciting people to riot or committ criminal acts is not covered as "free speech" beachbum bob Oct 2017 #20
Correct. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. VOX Oct 2017 #27
Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. X_Digger Oct 2017 #34
Yes, WE ALL KNOW THIS. Is such inciting what Spencer does? WinkyDink Oct 2017 #35
Spencer's followers commit murder or attempted murder every time he speaks. lagomorph777 Oct 2017 #22
Arrested for what? ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #30
Inciting homicide lagomorph777 Oct 2017 #39
His actual, real, explicit speech would need to be determined as "inciting a riot." Otherwise, no WinkyDink Oct 2017 #37
Ped State and Spencer seem like a natural match underpants Oct 2017 #26
Oh, how funny. Never mind the crimes were a generation ago, and confined to certain men. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #33
Can I speak there, too? Because EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME EVER, AMEN. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #32
... On Saturday, Spencer appeared at the University of Florida, where police say struggle4progress Oct 2017 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»They said no to a white n...»Reply #9