No, not even that - Black's dissent in Tinker v Des Moines is one of them, but I'll look around to line up a few others, if you're interested.
Even the internet itself, I suppose, could be outlawed consistently with the 1st amendment, if it didn't discriminate between the types of opinions presented on it.
Well, banning it outright wouldn't discriminate based on viewpoint - if nobody gets to use it, then everyone's ability to communicate is stifled, and no particular viewpoint is suppressed. But is that really consistent with what we understand the First Amendment to mean?
OK, I just finished looking at that dissent, and it didn't look to me like he was railing against "symbolic speech", but at the notion that "Congress* shall make no law" means "school officials shall adopt no policy". He didn't leave me with the impression at all that he would uphold a law that puts people in jail for wearing black armbands.
but I'll look around to line up a few others, if you're interested.
I would be interested, thanks, but don't put yourself through any trouble over it.
Well, banning it outright wouldn't discriminate based on viewpoint - if nobody gets to use it, then everyone's ability to communicate is stifled, and no particular viewpoint is suppressed. But is that really consistent with what we understand the First Amendment to mean?
Probably not. That may have been a little extreme, since it can scarcely be argued that the internet creates a public nuisance. I was just making a point that the primary effect of the 1st amendment is to protect viewpoints, and laws that are clearly designed to do something other than stifle political debate (such as nude-dancing laws) can't be considered a violation, provided they're administered impartially.