How could I resist posting about that case? The free speech question is, can the municipal government ban only inflatables that convey a commercial message, while allowing others? I dunno, but how can anyone object to a 9-foot inflatable Mario?
0 Comments
Apparently, at least one New York state legislator can’t comprehend that simple phrase in the First Amendment. I come to that conclusion because the legislator has introduced a bill that would require removal of statements made online that are “inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive.” The bill goes on to say that “inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive shall mean content, which after a significant lapse of time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse….”
So if someone were to decide that a statement I made on this blog is “no longer material to current public debate or discourse,” then I would have to remove it? Read my lips: under the First Amendment, no one gets to censor speech because they think it’s not “material.” It’s that simple. And oh by the way, the fact that it’s written on the internet, instead of being spoken in the public square, is irrelevant. If the content of a sign is speech protected by the First Amendment, there’s no way that written statements on the internet are not just as fully protected. Some time ago I wrote about a situation in St. Louis that involved that city trying to prohibit a sign that was critical of the city’s land use policies. Now there’s a similar situation, this time in Walton County, Florida. Once again, it’s an interesting combination of property law and sign regulation. And once again, I don’t see how the government (in this case, the county) can win. It looks to me like the county is trying to both take property without paying for it, and regulate signs based on the content of the messages on the signs. Those are both things that the courts have repeatedly said the government can’t do under the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution.
I’m not going to get into the subject matter of the particular situation that made me think about this, it because it could be controversial, but just as an exercise in legal analysis, here’s my take on filing a lawsuit against an art museum for displaying paintings that you find offensive: it’s not going to get you any results.
If you want to read about the particular situation it in more detail, go to the post about it on Lowering the Bar. That post contains a link to a page where someone posted a copy of what appears to be the complaint that was actually filed in court. As a lawyer, I found it pretty amusing, although I can’t help wondering if it is a put-on. |
AuthorThe contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation. Archives
November 2023
Categories
All
|