[freeeee]

The content of your message is the only determining factor as to whether you message is heard.

This is the crux of the issue. This is a textbook First Amendment case.

[Your Nightmare]

I believe the legal term is "content neutral". Restrictions to speech must be "content neutral".

I believe there have been a few recent cases on this. One is: Thomas v. Chicago Park District (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/00-1249/2000-1249.mer.ami.html) with the opinion author by Scalia. There may be others. I will post if I find them.

[AppyPappy]

Your message is still heard. It's a matter of how close you are to the President.

[meyer]

You make some very good points throughout the thread. But, do remember that the plaintiff is the ACLU, that same bastion of justice that suddenly determined that a voting system that had been fine for decades was no longer good enough when their candidate was about to lose. Twice. Also note that this is the same ACLU that beleives that the second amendment regards only the militia which they beleive to be the national guard.

I wouldn't take their accusations at face value.