|
Post by Frantic on Jun 5, 2018 20:34:58 GMT -8
I still don't understand. The quote you cite, "Judge Posner suggested...", does not appear in the Creek opinion. I googled the site you provided, and I don't want to sign up to read a law review article. EDIT: This thread needs to be retired...
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Jun 5, 2018 22:03:21 GMT -8
Kaepernick makes his own decisions and suffers the consequences of his decisions directly. While he does have the right to free speech that doesn't mean he has unfettered protection from the consequences. His employer or any potential employer is free to decide whether his marginal abilities on the field are worth the BS he brings along with him. California's actions, however, directly affect others who do not agree with their policy, are impacted financially because of them and it remains to be seen if this law is Constitutional since the ability to regulate commerce between states falls on the federal government and not the states individually. As for states having the "right of free speech" please show me where you find that because the most recent court decision U.S. v. American Library Association does not agree with you though the issue has never been properly settled: Appellees argue that CIPA imposes an unconstitutional condition on libraries that receive E-rate and LSTA subsidies by requiring them, as a condition on their receipt of federal funds, to surrender their First Amendment right to provide the public with access to constitutionally protected speech. The Government counters that this claim fails because Government entities do not have First Amendment rights. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 211*211 139 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring) ("The First Amendment protects the press from governmental interference; it confers no analogous protection on the government"); id., at 139, n. 7 ("`The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect private expression'" (quoting T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 700 (1970))).scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7891716025089102487Articulate enough for you? You articulate great...I never doubted you...but....: State Actors as First Amendment Speakers Pgs 9-12: "Moreover, even though these cases parrot the notion that government entities’ speech lacks constitutional status, they each end up vindicating, rather than restricting, the government’s prerogative to speak and they emphasize the importance of government’s contributions to the marketplace of ideas." "Some courts have simply declined to follow majority rule. One district court held (though without any reference to the CBS principle or its progeny) that a “municipal corporation . . . is protected under the First Amendment in the same manner as an individual."Creek vs Village of Westhaven: "Judge Posner suggested that a municipality’s speech rights derive from the aggregated voice of its constituent residents. “ [T]hat a municipality is the voice of its residents—is, indeed, a megaphone amplifying voices that might not otherwise be audible—a curtailment of its right to speak might be thought a curtailment of the unquestioned First Amendment right of those residents[.]”" Even the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the CBS principle, stating that whether state actors can exercise First Amendment rights remains an open question.43 Even more, in a variety of instances the Court’s jurisprudence implicitly contemplates speech rights for state actors."poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=843106086008084077089023065097072010017051024001008020124116119123013017071030113091049101001060018038058123066068025066085018081046000047122124023001099119103090061053008019013087111104013125080006090086010068118009071120099125012097113114114098&EXT=pdfAs far as Kaepernick...you fail to make the distinction between his free speech right and that of OK...the state made its own decision and is now suffering the consequences...it does not have unfettered protection...CA is free to determine if spending taxpayer funds in/on OK is worth the BS that comes with it...and the rest you wrote does not apply...good conversation...I appreciate you for it..... Oklahoma isn't exercising their "free speech" rights, they are passing and enacting state laws which they are empowered to do, it has nothing to do with individuals right to "free speech." Those laws passed by individual states do not impact the "rights" of Californians. If a state enacts a law that is contrary to the Constitution then federal courts can rule against the law via the 14th amendment (and, perhaps, others) which may require, ultimately, the SCOTUS to issue a final ruling. California does not have the "right" to determine what laws other states create are Constitutional. Again, I point to the "commerce clause" as to whether California has the "right" to single out and "punish" states that pass laws that California politicians don't agree with. Personally, I don't believe California's current position will survive a Constitutional challenge. It may make it through the 9th circus but that court has a record to be the most overturned court in the land.
|
|
|
Post by fisher1fan on Jun 5, 2018 23:16:13 GMT -8
You articulate great...I never doubted you...but....: State Actors as First Amendment Speakers Pgs 9-12: "Moreover, even though these cases parrot the notion that government entities’ speech lacks constitutional status, they each end up vindicating, rather than restricting, the government’s prerogative to speak and they emphasize the importance of government’s contributions to the marketplace of ideas." "Some courts have simply declined to follow majority rule. One district court held (though without any reference to the CBS principle or its progeny) that a “municipal corporation . . . is protected under the First Amendment in the same manner as an individual."Creek vs Village of Westhaven: "Judge Posner suggested that a municipality’s speech rights derive from the aggregated voice of its constituent residents. “ [T]hat a municipality is the voice of its residents—is, indeed, a megaphone amplifying voices that might not otherwise be audible—a curtailment of its right to speak might be thought a curtailment of the unquestioned First Amendment right of those residents[.]”" Even the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the CBS principle, stating that whether state actors can exercise First Amendment rights remains an open question.43 Even more, in a variety of instances the Court’s jurisprudence implicitly contemplates speech rights for state actors."poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=843106086008084077089023065097072010017051024001008020124116119123013017071030113091049101001060018038058123066068025066085018081046000047122124023001099119103090061053008019013087111104013125080006090086010068118009071120099125012097113114114098&EXT=pdfAs far as Kaepernick...you fail to make the distinction between his free speech right and that of OK...the state made its own decision and is now suffering the consequences...it does not have unfettered protection...CA is free to determine if spending taxpayer funds in/on OK is worth the BS that comes with it...and the rest you wrote does not apply...good conversation...I appreciate you for it..... It may make it through the 9th circus but that court has a record to be the most overturned court in the land. Have evidence? Politifact fact seems to disagree. www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 6, 2018 5:45:05 GMT -8
Do you understand the difference between rate and total? It's says the 9th Circus has a higher than average rate of overturned cases and the most cases overall, ergo, it is the most overturned circuit court in the land. So I must assume Hannity tells the truth when he says "most" and Politfact is staffed with biased hacks.
|
|