Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I already told you that "I'm talking about political speech." That was in the footnote that you omitted when you quoted my post. As I said in that footnote, there are other types of content-based restrictions that are not a problem. But the government doesn't get to discriminate on the basis of a political viewpoint, whether on government property or private property, without strict scrutiny.
|
On the basis of viewpoint, the government can't discriminate at all. But that isn't what you said. You said content-based. Content based is not synonymous with viewpoint based. The question to be answered is was the protester ejected on the basis of viewpoint or rather (as was held by the USSC to be constitutional) to avoid a disruption. The protestor is saying on the basis of viewpoint. Those who ejected the protestor said to avoid a disruption. It is very clear that avoiding a disruption is a valid grounds for suppressing speech in an non-public forum. That is not a time, manner, place restriction. That is content-based.
Read this part of the case I posted again:
"The First Amendment does not forbid a viewpoint-neutral exclusion of speakers who would disrupt a nonpublic forum and hinder its effectiveness for its intended purpose."
Was the purpose of the event to debate the merits of GWB's admin? Were the T-shirts wearers hindering the effectiveness of the event for its intended purpose? Or were they ejected for their viewpoints. Those are questions we can debate. But we cannot debate that the standard for a non-public forum content-based suppression of speech is reasonableness, not strict scrutiny. Read the cases if you want to know more.
