Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS OKs Corporate Election(ish) Speech (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No court would ever uphold a law (0+ / 0-)

    that said "no protest marches 60 days before an election."  

    The law at hand completely forecloses the airways for 60 days.  That is not a reasonable "time place and manner" regulation.

    •  Ban versus regulation (0+ / 0-)

      You're confusing an outright ban with regulation.

      If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

      by Paleo on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:14:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is an outright ban on ads 60 days (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        prior to an election.

        Just take this law and substitute TV for public street.  And then consider if a court would uphold something like that.

        •  Not a ban (0+ / 0-)

          It is not a ban on issue advocacy ads.  It is a ban on backdoor campaign ads disguised as issue ads.  And the street analogy only goes so far.  When it comes to impacting an election, a street protest and ads on radio and TV is an apples and oranges proposition.

          If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

          by Paleo on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:22:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That street protests may be less effective (0+ / 0-)

            does not detract from the analogy.  If anything, it suggests that governemnt should be able to ban street protests more easily, since the impact on promulgation of speech wouldn't be great.

            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

              That doesn't make sense.  And it has nothing to do with "effectiveness," but rather ability to communicate.

              You persist in ignoring the reality that the broadcast medium is a separate animal.  Not only it's ability to communicate to millions of people at one time, but the fact that a myriad of restrictions are, and have been, imposed on the communications transmitted on that medium.

              If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

              by Paleo on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:41:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  That's just not true (0+ / 0-)

      Courts have upheld laws preventing protests on public streets within a certain time frame of a funeral. That hasn't made it's way to SCOTUS yet, but those laws are on the books in several states in response to Fred Phelps.

      In the end I think those laws are also unconstitutional, but it's inaccurate to say that no court would uphold such a law.

      •  60 days? (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, courts have upheld laws establishing a REASONABLE time regulation.  60 days is unreasonable.

        •  How is 1 hour or 2 hours reasonable? (0+ / 0-)

          If the intent is to protest a particular event, how is it reasonable to put a restrictive time frame such that there is no event going on during the time frame in which it is legal to protest?

          I'm agreeing with you here. I agree with the majority. I also agree with the ACLU that these time frame laws are unconstitutional impingements on the exercise of free speech, because I don;t think even a plus or minus 1 or 2 hour window is reasonable.

          •  Well, I can put forth an argument that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            it is reasonable because the protest seeks to intrude on a private event.  So protestor's rights conflict with the 1st Amendment rights of the mourners not to be forced to listen to the speech.  Unlike TV that you can turn off, or street corner which you can avoid, you can't just leave the funeral.

            •  There are other remedies for that (0+ / 0-)

              i.e. they can't block the driveway, they can't come on private property, and they can't use bullhorns over a certain decibel level.

              Beyond that, the best way to counter offensive speech is with more free speech, as the buys on Harleys with flags have done, and the kids (including me) in angel costumes before that.

              •  Generally, I agree that the way to (0+ / 0-)

                counter speech is with more speech.  But in terms of a funeral that presents a problem.  The family may not want ANY speech, pro or con whatever issue.  They may just want to bury their loved ones in peace.  They are a captive audience.  And because they are, they have a 1st Am. right not to listen to speech.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site