Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 467928)

It's playing out just as Ironweed predicted.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 467960)

Wonk apologizes for his delayed response. Wonk was busy having a seventh stent placed and that, and the versed, fentanyl, and morphine have proven somewhat distracting.

You will be glad to know that Wonk is now home and believes the reference to him as "Davidian" was an allusion to David Koresh. Wonk chooses not o dignify the cheap shot with a response as he is busy getting the word out on his newly-arrived at decision to run for President.

Wonk thinks that, given that his days are numbered, he doesn't really need to give a fat rolling fuck what anybody thinks of him. This is a unique advantage, as Wonk can call Boehner, Santorum, Pelosi, etc., a bunch of stupid, spineless fucks and not have to worry about the fallout, which is good, because Wonk intends to veto any piece of legislation he considers to be a waste of time, resources, money, or personal dignity. He also intends to dissolve Homeland Security, because nobody sould ever have tha kind of comprehensive investigative power without total sunshine.

So, (i) vote for Wonk in 2012 and (ii) blow me for America.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 467961)

No it wasn't.

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 467958)

Because you're wrong?*





*What's with the random asterisk?

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 467930)

That's what the petition clause is for. Smarter people than I -- though by no means necessarily smarter than you -- have said that the "right to hear" is the best way to understand and stop being made angry by SCOTUS jurisprudence in this area, because (for example) a corporation's right to speech is meaningless unless you understand the First Amendment instead being a right to hear what a corporation has to say, even if the government has a reason it doesn't think you should hear it. Same with the "money=speech" cases. It even explains why the Supreme Court allows greater limitations on speech in schools and public workplaces. Because it's less about whether you have a right to speak -- obviously, you do, you can do in in your fucking bedroom for all the government cares -- and more about whether the regulation at issue interferes with your right to hear what the speaker has to say, if you seek it out. It's also why "chilling effect" theory looks not at whether the individual speaker was deterred, but whether a reasonable speaker might be deterred by the regulation being challenged. Through this lens, public forum/private forum cases all seem more rational.

Of course, the troubling thing for this theory is that it's hard to get "listener standing" in an overbreadth challenge because of the way the SCOTUS has framed Article III standing. But the reason we punish state actors who punish speakers is because of the perceived harm to the potential listeners.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 467955)

Say you're merely using a silkscreen of a Botero you don't own as a backdrop at rallies - a situation analogous to a candidate using someone's song. Botero could sue for the appropriation, and demand it cease.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 467935)

I said it explained why the SCOTUS has two different standards, not that it explains the outcomes when those standards are applied. Bong Hits 4 Jesus was decided on a pretty stupid basis, that a compelling interest could be established by showing the speech's inconsistency with the school's anti-drug message. I can't defend that.

But the point was that if the First Amendment is focused on the right of the speaker to speak, you'd have a hard time justifying why that right varies based on location. It's easier when you realize Garcetti and Tinker are essentially time-place-manner restrictions, not primarily content-based, and why you and I will probably both applaud when the SCOTUS finally says clearly that Tinker doesn't apply to off-campus utterances.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 467940)

Is this a whiff or is it meta?

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick (Post 467959)

I talked with Leonard Cohen once. If turning beet red and saying "I think you're great. Can I have your autograph" counts as talking. We discussed the mechanics of signing an autograph with a faulty pen. Does that count as discussing ideas?

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 467965)

I meant to add a note stating that I was refusing to link to that particular Eliot poem.

And I am wrong because I dislike The Waste Land? You know I love you like that hot co-worker in the west coast office that I see once a year at the firm meeting and sing drunken karaoke love songs with, but why? It just puzzles me that I like one and dislike the other. With poets, I usually either like their work or not.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 467969)

If you can't tell, I hope nobody told you.

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen (Post 467971)

Yes. You are wrong to dislike an Eliot poem at all. Hard stop.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 467961)

No it wasn't.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 467974)

It was, and I think, deep down, you know it was. That said, I could actually get behind your platform. Parts of it I even find compelling.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 467968)

It isn't hard at all. Time-place-manner restrictions are justified because others have rights that must be weighed against the right of the speaker. Hence Holmes's remark about citizens not having the right to cry "fire" in a crowded movie theater.