Originally Posted by LessinSF
So, fuck me, I was talking tonight with some non-lawyers and trying to explain Stevens, and how it is not about whether depicting animal cruelty is good or bad. How the Court agreed - socalled liberals and convervatives eight to one - and how the MSM portrayal of these issues as being split down this made-up, artificial construct of a two-dimensional line is bullshit. And I failed. Most non-lawyers don't grasp the Constitutional issues - it is a legislative approach to them. Animal cruelty bad, possibility that government prosecutes bullfighting videos remote.
I was reminded of when I was on the Student Senate at U.C. Berkeley and voted against every bill that gave tuition fee money to student groups that espoused any political beliefs. I thought that a state school could not constitutionally use mandatory fees to fund a group that the payor of that fee disagreed with. I lost dozens of votes 28-1, 26-1, etc.
Six years later, the California Supreme Court agreed with me and ruled that, although they could charge the fee, anyone had to be given a refund who asked for it. Smith v. Regents of the University of California, 4 Cal.4th 843 (1993).
Then the lower court in Smith 2 on remand ruled that the educational value of the Student Senate outweighs the burden on free speech and that the Regents could continue to use mandatory fees to support the Senate without a refund or similar procedure. Smith v. Regents, 56 Cal.App.4th 979 (1997) (Smith II) (I am not sure at 2:00 a.m. how they could do this, and need to investigate.)
And the U.S. Supes resolved it in Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000), stating "[t]he University may sustain the extracurricular dimensions of its programs by using mandatory student fees with viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle."
Which is fine in the abstract, but at Cal in 1987 the Student Senate would fund an honoraria for Cesar Chavez, but not for [insert conservative here]. Same thing with student groups - La Raza funded, Federalist Society not. In other words, our Senate funding process was not viewpoint neutral.
So although I may not have won on all my points, I was found to be fundamentally correct in my objectiions by both the Cal Supes and the U.S. Supes, but not a single other Senator (of 30) agreed (or was willing to admit they agreed) with my absolutely fucking correct position. Nor would they defend the First Amendmentof theior constituents because they viewed everything through the prism of "doing the right thing." These people suck, cannot be trusted, and deserve no deference. Stevens today said that, without saying it.
Depictions of animal Rrghts, hate speech, restrictions on depictions of Mohammad, blasphemy, Nazis, teenagers on Facebook "bullying" others, etc. They are all slippery slopes, and don't let the fact that 29 out of 30 disagree change your opinion. Those 29 were assholes. I was the only righteous, correct elected Senator, and I ran as a joke candidate - "Calvin and Hobbes." I only wish I had all their e-mail addresses to ask them if they are embarrassed and chastised.
P.S. Go Liberal Democrats in May!
|
