Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hot Tabasco

not so fast!, The Supreme Court has recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.


1,088 posted on 10/19/2005 4:16:56 PM PDT by ruoflaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1086 | View Replies ]


To: ruoflaw
not so fast!, The Supreme Court has recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.

Sorry fella, while I think Nazis are vile scum, I don't like government prohibiting speech on grounds of preventing violence or causing breeches of peace.

Kinda vague.

If brown-shirted scum decide to march on Washington in some attempt to seize power, fire at will.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the business suited Nazis actually sitting in Washington who hide behind pseudonyms such as "Democrats" and "liberals".

1,089 posted on 10/19/2005 5:25:59 PM PDT by He Rides A White Horse (unite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies ]

To: ruoflaw
The Supreme Court has recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence

If you are going to cut and paste portions of that argument that attempt to support your argument, you had better read the entire text.

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the based on an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights.

Since there is not any evidence that the nazi group who cancelled their march were involved in any proven illegal activities, they were granted their marching permit.........

So back to the original question, who determines what is permissible, the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by YOU?

1,090 posted on 10/19/2005 5:45:21 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (I'm tired of idiots and don't have enough ammo to shoot them all.......Jeez, I hate that thought!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies ]

To: ruoflaw; sageb1; Black Tooth

Just thought you might like to know that our illustrious , totally worthless, (black, by the way) mayor has no less than three re-election campaign commercials being run over-and-over on the local TV channels touting what a great job he & the cops did in the riot. First one appeared three days after the riot ended.


1,095 posted on 10/23/2005 5:27:26 AM PDT by The Foolkiller ( Why......That sounds.....FOOLish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1088 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson