Let me read....nope, still no 1st amendment violations occurring because of safe spaces.

We're talking about safe spaces and freedom of speech in the POG politics thread, and one of the honest to god claims that is being made is that freedom of speech rights are being trampled because people are too scared of losing their jobs, or marriages, or social image to honestly say the things they want to say.

So the argument is that the self censorship of their more hateful beliefs is an example of freedom of speech being taken from them.

I shouldn't have to explain that freedom of speech does not and never has meant freedom of speech sans personal consequences, yet that is what we have come to.

I took a gander in that thread the other day. It's unreal bad.

**** it. I have to post some of this insanity here.

Here is one where me being a meanie head is compared to AN EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT

LOL legit not sure if serious with that last paragraph. Dude is MAD. Keep up the good work.

That guy was dropped on his head at some point. I keep forgetting the gold that is POG politics.

My favorite series of posts begins here.

LOL

In before years of Trolly and Fly crying about going back to POG.

PS is an interesting character.

It's entirely coincidental that he's a Mets fan, btw

I wish Well Named would dump POG politics and hang out here instead. Or we can trade for FoldN.

I read a bunch of threads here, but you guys make most of the comments I would before I could get to it, and are also wittier about it, so I end up posting less. Also when I engage Bad Posters (tm) on SJW(tm) topics dids yells at me and I'm very sensitive.

I yell at everybody (but me, it's OK when I do it, I have excellent judgement) about that though.

POG thread is unreadable. I'm still subscribed to it for some reason, so every day I open it up, scroll through several pages of unreadable gibberish from the likes of Zorkman and PyramidScheme and close it. Occasionally I read like the three most recent posts and almost invariably wish I hadn't.

Speaking of horrible threads- NVG has a great one- just chalk full of a complete misunderstanding of sexual assult, consent, and basic human decency.

Yeah, the one politics forum that will have bahbahmickey is not something Im going to venture into.

My sense is that the court understands the supreme importance of our right to freedom of expression, and they want to be very careful allowing new restrictions on it and setting precedents for any future restrictions. You can see their thought process in the majority opinion from the Snyder vs Westboro Baptist ruling, which was actually a tort case, as Westboro had broken no laws. The last part of the opinion is quoted below:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

Sure Westboro gets permits, and they generally break no laws. Yet, as you can see, there are a number of ways their rights can be challenged and protected by the courts. The man arrested for protesting excessive police violence against the African American comminity had no permit, because protesting on the SCOTUS steps is not permitted by law. And the law is not supposed to infringe on his right to peacefully assemble!

Yes, this is due to time and place restrictions, which are allowed; however, what is perplexing, and why there is push back against the ruling (and gentle chiding about SCOTUS needing a "safe space") is that peaceful protesting has always been allowed by law on courthouse steps across the nation.

Considering that, the opinion by Judge Srinivasan seems pretty lame to me,

He goes on to explain that the court grounds are large and gated, and so protesting inside them is different than outside another courthouse, and again stresses avoiding the "appearance" of the court being subject to political pressure. I find that claim to be a pretty tenuous reason to prevent freedom of expression on their steps like any other courthouse, but whatever, it's something to argue about.

Foldn, have you ever played warewolf?

The law can place reasonable time and place restrictions on protests. It absolutely can infringe on your right to peacefully assemble in much the same way that your TA can tell you to STFU if you spazz out about abortion in the middle of a math class. That's not a 1st Amendment violation.

PS: ever checked out POG politics?

I don't care if you sign him up for werewolf, I'm retired. But if he starts posting in POG Politics there will be consequences

WTF man, that thread is bad enough

BTW I doubt this tops wil's work on Anita Sarkeesian in politics unchained

"She's a liar, she didn't even file a police report"
(link to her filing a police report)
"Goddammit, that doesn't matter, that ratchet ass is lying about everything"

Again, of course the law can place restrictions on free speech, but there must be good reason to do so, and in cases of political speech the court is typically very hesitant to do so unless it can be shown there are very compelling reasons. In most cases, the reasons have to do with competing rights, eg, right to privacy vs speech (captive audience) or to prevent harm (fighting words, shouting fire, libel).

Time and place restrictions are allowed for the same reasons, like protesting in the middle of the road prevents people from their right to get home and watch netflix.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...r+Restrictions
My bold.

The stated reasoning of "the appearance of political pressure" doesn't pass muster, imo. I think the right of the protester to march on the SCOTUS courthouse steps against what he feels is the state's tyranny against the black population, like he is allowed to do on any other courthouse steps, trumps the state's right to preserve the "appearance" of being neutral, a concept that seems unlikely to be threatened by a few protesters publicly expressing their opinions.