Replies

So the court "interprets" the 1rst amendment to allow for the restriction of speech near polling places. I don't interpret it that way, it seems pretty open ended to me, but hearing that the courts interpret it that way makes sense of what we are seeing now.

If you view the First Amendment as absolute, then you could have a spectator during a trial simply stand up and start screaming whatever, because that's their First Amendment right. Disrupt a trial indefinitely. Or literally people just screaming in the middle of the polling place urging votes for one candidate or another. Imagine 15-20 orchestrating that in a single polling place just to disrupt it.

Time, place, and manner restrictions have a long history, and general have been approved - if carefully limited - by the Supreme Court. Even for polling places, the prohibited area has to be small, and it is meant to prevent voter intimidation and prospective voters waiting in line being forced to listened to someone haranguing them. Also to promote the idea that a polling place is a "neutral" location not biased for or against a particular candidate.

If you have an issue with that, fine. I don't, and think it is a reasonable, very limited restriction.

If you view the First Amendment as absolute, then you could have a spectator during a trial simply stand up and start screaming whatever, because that's their First Amendment right.

Is there a constitutional requirement that a trial be open to the public? Some years back I read an argument asserting that the "right to associate" implies a right to disassociate. Meaning you can exclude people whom you don't want there.

Also, Judges have the authority to issue contempt orders, so you may be able to speak, but a judge can have you arrested for disrupting his court proceeding.

Or literally people just screaming in the middle of the polling place urging votes for one candidate or another.

Democracy can be messy. Ever watch a house of commons debate?

Time, place, and manner restrictions have a long history, and general have been approved - if carefully limited - by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme court has made a lot of boners over the years. Even though they are the "official" authority, I do not trust their ability to interpret the constitution correctly.

If you have an issue with that, fine. I don't, and think it is a reasonable, very limited restriction.

I think it's all a matter of how finely you want to slice a hair. I notice the courts are all about fine hair slicing on some subjects and happy to allow very broad meanings in others.