You hypocritical bastard

[drwex]

Yes, I mean you, Mr Chief Justice Roberts. How can you sanctimoniously write

Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor

and not include a footnote saying "Except where the speech concerns drugs and the censor is the governmental or in loco parentis authority figure?

Oh, right, because speech is only free when it's paid for, not when it's a kid holding up a banner. The First Amendment apparently protects big-money political buyers like unions and PACs, but not actual individual Americans. Jeezus jumping jehosephat, how do people like this sleep at night?

(For those not following the reference, I'm ranting about Roberts' opinion striking down McCain-Feingold limits on political ad spending which differs remarkably from yesterday's ruling on Bong hits 4 Jesus.)

P.S. feste, note again Scalitomas voting en bloc.

Comments

[gsh]

Well, it makes sense when you realize they don't consider children to have rights protected by the constitution, but rather are propery of the parents.

[dpolicar]

Yeah... I would actually go along with this had the event taken place on school grounds.

We've essentially accepted that the school exists in loco parentis; I find that troubling in many ways but it is the convention. And I'd find it difficult to argue that parents aren't permitted to curtail/punish their children's speech in their own home, much as I'd caution them to use that permission sparingly.

[gsh]

Yeah... I would actually go along with this had the event taken place on school grounds.

Well, it happened across the street, when everyone was let out to watch the olympic torch, and then classes continued.

[dpolicar]

(nods)

I haven't seen a map of the area, but recalling what the equivalent layout would have been in my high school, the same principle would mean the school had control-in-principle of several private residences, a deli, and a couple of gas stations. Surely that can't be right.

I have no problem with schools refusing to let students off school property while school is in session. But if they choose to do so, one consequence is they give up some control over the environment their students are in during that time. IMHO, they can't have it both ways.

[gsh]

the same principle would mean the school had control-in-principle of several private residences, a deli, and a couple of gas stations. Surely that can't be right.

Well, I agree it can't be right, but that's cause I don't think it meant the school had control of several private residences, etc.

I think it is clear that the school maintains control if (for example) they take a trip to the zoo. In this case they took a trip to the street to watch something pass by on the street. If they had dismissed classes for the day, then I'd agree they gave up control of students, but classes continued. I'm not very annoyed over this case.

[dpolicar]

Interesting.

I agree that, because class was in session, the school had the right to keep its students on school grounds, where it can control the messages they're exposed to. But given that the school chose not to exercise that right, I don't see where it has any grounds to exert control over speech on the street just because that's where it sent its students during class time.

I agree that the field-trip-to-the-zoo analogy is relevant, and I would say the same thing there: the school is free to send students to the zoo, or not, based on whatever assurances the zoo is capable of providing and whatever other factors it wants to take into account. But once it chooses to do so, it can't claim the right to restrict speech at the zoo on the grounds that such speech will expose its students to undesirable messages. That's not under the school's control, it's under the zoo's control. In choosing to send its students to the zoo, the school gives up some control over what its students might be exposed to.

Similarly, in choosing to send its students out on the street, the school gives up the same control, and cedes it to the various private residences and public services that face the street, and to citizens on the street legally exercising their right to free speech.

Now, if we want to discard the legal line of reasoning that says "the school has a right to protect its students from bad messages, even outside school property" and replace it with a line of reasoning that says "the school has a right to control its students' speech, even outside school property, never mind who is exposed to it" I'd consider that more consistent with our usual in loco parentis approach to schools. (Which, as I said originally, I have trouble with, but accept as the convention.)

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

I don't mind Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voting en bloc when they're correct.

[drwex]

Ends do not justify means.

Money is not speech, it's property.

And we're talking about your misconception that those three are not so uniformly of a mind that it's reasonable to talk about them as one, not their merits in this vote.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Oh, bullshit. Try speaking during the campaign season without money and see just how many ears you reach.

But if you want to be a die-hard anti-material altruist, then fine. Justify the ban above peoples' right to freely assemble (another part of the same enumerated amendment).

And I understand that all conservatives rook arike to you, bigot.

[wotw]

Oh, these rulings were more consistent with each other than you
give them credit for. They both said, in effect, that your right
to free speech depends on what you're saying, and more particularly
on whether the Supreme Court happens to *like* what you're saying.

If you buy airtime to discuss an *issue*, that's okay. If you buy
air time to back a *candidate*, that's not okay. If you put up a
pro-chastity banner, that's okay. If you put up a pro-drug banner,
that's not okay.

Both decisions come down to: "We plan to micromanage your freedom
of speech".

[drwex]

That's distressingly true.