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.
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.
So if the thing is a public nuisance, and it affects people regardless of the viewpoint being expressed, then we don't have to consider it a protected form of expression?
So can we ban rap music? I bet you I can dig up a lot of people who consider it a public nuisance - in fact, I bet I could dig up nearly as many as consider nude dancing a public nuisance - and if we ban all rap music regardless of the opinions being expressed in the performances, we're clean, right?