Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 11 2017, @12:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-bill-of-rights-for-you dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Can the government ban the text of the First Amendment itself on municipal transit ads because free speech is too "political" for public display? If this sounds like some ridiculous brain teaser, it should. But unfortunately it's not. It's a core claim in a lawsuit we filed today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) restrictions on controversial advertising.

[...] Earlier this year, following President Trump's repeated commentary denigrating journalists and Muslims, the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too — to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.

The ACLU inquired about placing our ads with WMATA, envisioning an inspirational reminder of our founding texts, with a trilingual twist, in the transit system of the nation's capital. But it was not to be: Our ad was rejected because WMATA's advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" or "intended to influence public policy."

You don't have to be a First Amendment scholar to know that something about that stinks.

Source: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/first-amendment-literally-banned-dc

Also at NPR.


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11 2017, @12:48AM (11 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday August 11 2017, @12:48AM (#551988) Journal

    Whoops! Definitely not for real [rollingstone.com]

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:04AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:04AM (#551996)

    Well, if 10 amendments is too much for a bill of rights, maybe too much to remember or something, we could probably repeal the 9th and 10th. Nobody was using those anyway.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 11 2017, @02:24AM (1 child)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday August 11 2017, @02:24AM (#552044) Homepage Journal

      We can fix the Constitution by holding a convention. We have 25 states where the governor and the legislature are both Republican. We have 28 states that want the convention. Once we get 6 more states we can have the convention. Get yourselves more Republican governors and more Republican legislators. Give money, vote, get out there and run for office! Then we can fix the Constitution, or #RepealAndReplace. Go back to what we had before. Back to the Articles of Confederation. Back to the time when America was great. Everybody was happy, the sun was shining, the water was clean. America was second to none. Until the Constitution. #MAGA 🇺🇸

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:55AM (#552068)

        I've been saying that for years, whether it is the whole country or just the southern states that choose to move to the Articles of Confederation.

        Something that many people forget in regards to the reason the Confederation fell and was replaced by the Union was the trifecta of issues state rights above all caused: State-specific currency, which lead to some states heavily inflating their currency while others weren't printing enough, leading to all sorts of trade imbalances between states. Debt left over from the Civil War was another, this was related to some but not all of the currency issues mentioned above. Lack of a cohesive foreign trade policy, which lead to different states trading with different foreign partners, some of which were antagonistic to each other and sometimes 'rival' states. And lastly: unequal enforcement of laws and intentionally differing/incompatible laws between states, affecting interstate commerce.

        While I dislike the level of overreach the federal government has been taking for itself ever since the 'modern' country's founding, people often forget all the shortcomings that could be enumerated against the original pre-Constitution American Confederacy. Sadly what replaced it was a series of compromises, oversights, and intentional power grabs which have continued until today. Much like Rome didn't decline in a century, neither did America. But decline now it does.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:47AM (#552062)

      People have been ignoring the 9th amendment, which explicitly states it is a catch-all for privacy and various other rights that should be documented, but not too closely enumerated so the government/non-freedom loving individuals could write laws to do an end run around them.

      Doesn't look like it worked out too well, given how forgotten the 9th has become.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:44AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:44AM (#552017)

    I couldn't stand reading too much of that article, but right near the beginning they mention that the runner-up of the last election would have served as VP for the next. I actually think that could have been a brilliant idea! It might have prevented the two party fuckery we got going on now.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday August 11 2017, @02:35AM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Friday August 11 2017, @02:35AM (#552055) Journal

      And induced a lot of coup d'etats.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:57AM (#552071)

        Better the government be too busy fighting itself rather than *US*, eh?

  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 11 2017, @02:55PM (3 children)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday August 11 2017, @02:55PM (#552309) Homepage Journal

    After that rape story last year, Rolling Stone has no credibility at all.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:00AM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:00AM (#552664) Journal

      I see, so everything they say is false? Even an opinion piece? What about their top 100 (well, there I will admit some disagreement myself)? You still read the Post, NYT, watch CBS, CNN?

      Besides all that, "credibility" has nothing to do with the price of rice in this instance.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:03PM (1 child)

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday August 12 2017, @01:03PM (#552833) Homepage Journal

        No, only that everything they write is suspect. If they're the only ones saying it, it's likely BS. Actually, I never trust any info that only comes from one source, especially if that one source is a proven bullshitter.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 12 2017, @03:19PM

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 12 2017, @03:19PM (#552863) Journal

          All the others I mentioned (and a few that I haven't) are proven bullshitters too. Either way, the purpose of the reference had nothing at all to do with credibility. I was posting a satirical look at the real attacks on the 1st Amendment. Don't be a party pooper

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..