Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Burger previously floated the idea that you are now toying with -- that you can suppress certain political speech on the rationale that it may cause a disruption, and that therefore the discrimination against it is really not viewpoint-based. If you think you have a case that stands for that proposition -- the one you are relying on has to do with organizations seeking to join a fundraising drive in federal offices -- by all means, post it. But Burger was smart enough not pursue that line of thinking, since it would gut the First Amendment's protection of unpopular political speech. They weren't kicking people out with tee shirts with political speech on them -- they were kicking out the two people wearing anti-Bush messages. The First Amendment doesn't allow this.
|
You are wrong about the 1st amendment analysis. Did you read the cases I posted? Don't bother answering because clearly you did not. The USSC clearly stated that in a non-public forum, avoiding disruptions is a reasonable restraint on speech as long as it is viewpoint neutral.
Assuming there is state action, the analysis is that first you have to figure out if it is protected speech. If it is protected speech, then you determine if the forum is a public, designated (or limited) public forum, or a non-public forum. If it is a non-public forum and the regulation is viewpoint neutral, then reasonableness is the standard for assessing content-based regulations.
You say they were kicked out based on viewpoint. What if they kicked out those with anti-Kerry T-shirts, too? That would be viewpoint neutral but content based in that any campaign related speech was excluded (i.e., subject-matter regulations which are constitutional in non-public forums - go read the cases if you don't believe me). But if there were no anti-Kerry T-hsirt wearers there, the fact that anti-Bush T-shirt wears were kicked out wouldn't be dispositive of a viewpoint bias.
The union case with the teacher's union that I posted was a political speech case. The issue was the salaries and benefits of public school teachers. The government barred the more liberal union that wanted to attract teacher's support. Show me a case where in a non-public forum, the USSC said that strict scrutiny was required. You cannot because the test is reasonableness. You are just wrong. Read the cases.
You seem to think that the issue is whether it is political speech or not. That isn't the issue in a non-public forum. The issue in a non-public forum is if it is viewpoint neutral.
