Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 11, @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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday August 11, @12:34AM (18 children)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Friday August 11, @12:34AM (#551974)

    I think they just didn't make the advertisement catchy enough [youtube.com].

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday August 11, @12:39AM (15 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @12:39AM (#551979) Homepage Journal

      We could show bloody patriots fighting and dying for free speech, but that would give the Muslims and other African immigrants even more bad ideas. Serious revolts require organization and valor, not suicide bombings and spear-chuckings.

      The Spanish-speaking are at least sated with welfare gibs and love America on some level, even if it isn't hip for them to admit it and many of them don't like Trump.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11, @12:55AM (14 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday August 11, @12:55AM (#551990) Journal

        Serious revolts require money and weapons. You will get nowhere without them no matter how devoted.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @01:19AM (1 child)

          Money's easy if you already have the weapons.

          --
          Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 11, @01:19PM

            by deimtee (3272) on Friday August 11, @01:19PM (#552255)

            Bit of a vicious cycle then, 'cause weapons are easy if you've got the money.

        • (Score: 4, Disagree) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @01:42AM (10 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @01:42AM (#552015)

          Serious revolts require money and weapons.

          So, in your opinion, the following were absolute clowns (because they achieved it without weapons and/or money), right?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11, @01:50AM (7 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday August 11, @01:50AM (#552019) Journal

            Are you honestly trying to tell me all those were accomplished without money, probably from the outside, just like the American revolution?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:52AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:52AM (#552022)

              The and/or makes your statement foolish. *golf clap*

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @02:01AM (5 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:01AM (#552028)

              Are you honestly trying to tell me all those were accomplished without money, probably from the outside, just like the American revolution?

              Yes, I'm honestly trying to open your eyes to the reality.

              As a former citizen of one of the countries in the list above, I can assure you I was out in the streets without a weapon and without being paid from outside.
              As were all my friends and lots of others; what clowns we were, right?

              ---
              (do you really believe Mahatma Gandhi was actually sponsored by CIA or somethin'?)

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11, @02:17AM (4 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday August 11, @02:17AM (#552038) Journal

                I guess in your country personal anecdotes make for valid statistics. Maybe you should check what actually brought the government down in the first place. If you name the country, maybe I can provide some assistance in that. I can assure you it wasn't for a bunch of people out the street stomping their feet.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @02:39AM (3 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:39AM (#552056)

                  I guess in your country personal anecdotes make for valid statistics. Maybe you should check what actually brought the government down in the first place.

                  I'd love to see what the "conspirators" (that you alleged) would have done without people in the streets stomping their feet.
                  Those clowns without weapons and/or money which, in Romania's case [wikipedia.org], actually lost their life doing so.

                  If you name the country, maybe I can provide some assistance in that.

                  If you like a challenge, do it for India/Mahatma Gandhi's case
                  (no, I'm not going to disclose my country of origin)

                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11, @02:57AM (2 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday August 11, @02:57AM (#552070) Journal

                    Gandhi... was financed by some of the leading industrialists in West India, the Sarabhais, textile magnates in the Gujarat, and the Birlas, second largest industrialist group in all of India. Millions of rupees were given to him over a period of 25 years.

                    There appears to be much about Gandhi you don't know...

                    I'm not going to disclose my country of origin

                    So be it, then I won't believe your story...

                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @03:09AM (1 child)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:09AM (#552081)

                      Gandhi... was financed by some of the leading industrialists in West India, the Sarabhais, textile magnates in the Gujarat, and the Birlas, second largest industrialist group in all of India. Millions of rupees were given to him over a period of 25 years.

                      Believe me or not, a fact is that you are yet to demonstrate the emphasized conjunction in your original assertion.

                      Serious revolts require money and weapons.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Friday August 11, @02:15AM (1 child)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Friday August 11, @02:15AM (#552037)

            Interesting take on India: https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/no-non-violence-didnt-free-india-from-the-british-empire/ [wordpress.com]

            Yugoslavia sort of saved its violence for engaging in a horrific civil war.

            Anyway, whether a revolution turns violent or not seems to depend on how much the ruling class is willing to fight. With India for example, the Brits were pretty beat up by Germany, faced organized armed resistance in India, and apparently decided to say "fuck it." France too was battered in WWII, but it decided instead to keep a death grip on Vietnam which obtained its freedom in bloody struggle.

            So anyway, it seems to me that non-violence is an effective strategy against a tired or soft ruler, but not so much against a hard ass.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @02:47AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:47AM (#552063)

              So anyway, it seems to me that non-violence is an effective strategy against a tired or soft ruler, but not so much against a hard ass.

              If you substitute "hard ass" with USA today, there's nothing US govt can do against a general strike lasting for, say, 2 weeks. And I guarantee you, the govt is not going to last to such a strike.

              Fortunately, this isn't going to happen: without govt, in spite of what the diehard libertarians/anarchist in US think, without a govt the US future is a Somalian type of chaos.
              The USians are too divided now and, besides, their life-long education is based on opportunism and competition - good luck organizing (or self organizing) a coherent social movement.

        • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday August 11, @08:33AM

          by moondrake (2658) on Friday August 11, @08:33AM (#552200)

          this should be no problem. Putin is already funding your downfall.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:40AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:40AM (#551980)

      It's printed advertising, similar to a billboard. There's no audio.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:02AM (#551993)

        Yet.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Friday August 11, @12:36AM (24 children)

    by stormwyrm (717) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @12:36AM (#551976) Journal

    So now what should be the highest law of the United States, the very bedrock upon which the entire country is founded, is considered "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" or "intended to influence public policy." From what I can tell, other than "ACLU: We The People" and "United States Constitution Amendment 1" there are no additional elements in the ad besides the text of the First Amendment. The damn Constitution should be public policy by definition, so how can presenting it verbatim be construed as influencing public policy?! How can it be "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" when the ACLU has presented only the verbatim text of the Amendment with no additional commentary? It might have been different if the ACLU added some additional text regarding their pet interpretation of the First Amendment but that clearly was not done here.

    --
    The right to believe whatever you want does not mean that whatever you want to believe is right.
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday August 11, @01:04AM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday August 11, @01:04AM (#551994)

      > The damn Constitution should be public policy by definition, so how can presenting it verbatim be construed as influencing public policy?!

      Literalists rejoice: reminding people of the law is indeed a form of influence.

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Friday August 11, @01:28AM (15 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @01:28AM (#552008) Journal

      varying opinions

      Well with liberals shouting down conservative speakers you pretty much have to agree there are varying opinions on the freedom of speech.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @01:54AM (13 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @01:54AM (#552023)

        Well with liberals shouting down conservative speakers you pretty much have to agree there are varying opinions on the freedom of speech.

        As long as the group shouting down others is not the government, what exactly in the "a group of people shouts down speakers of other groups" situation contradicts the "Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion" provisions of your Constitution?

        ---

        Remember:

        1. for govt, whatever right is not explicitly granted, it is forbidden
        2. for private citizens, whatever right is not explicitly forbidden, it is allowed

        Or at least this happens in a normally functioning democracy.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @02:35AM (7 children)

          You're confusing the Constitutional Right with the underlying ideal. We have the former because the latter is the most important thing possible to a free society, not the other way around. There is never a benefit to society in silencing speech you disagree with or that offends you. No matter who does the silencing.

          --
          Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @03:04AM (6 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:04AM (#552075)

            You're confusing the Constitutional Right with the underlying ideal.

            Well, until the underlying ideal is formalized in constitution/laws, what is not forbidden is allowed.

            For example: I do appreciate your non-censorship position in regards with S/N, but I don't know (haven't read) if the charter/constitution/incorporation act (whatevs) of the S/N's steward has those provisions worded as a formal regulation.
            As such, I have no formal warranties the same rights will apply if TMB becomes incapable (for whatever reasons) to maintain his promise.

            There is never a benefit to society in silencing speech you disagree with or that offends you. No matter who does the silencing.

            As a personal stance, I'm not disagreeing with it. But, being a subjective position**, I'm not willing to proselytize for it either.

            ---

            ** as long as it wasn't objectively demonstrated, this will remain a subjective position. Almost a matter of faith, if you like.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @03:57AM (5 children)

              I don't know that non-censorship is in the founding documents or not, I just know you'd have to get rid of myself, the Deucalion formerly known as juggs, and NCommander at the very least to even make the tiniest inroad towards censorship. Their feelings on the matter aren't any weaker or more nuanced than my own; I'm just the biggest loudmouth about it. We're none of us perfect, mind you, but between us we keep each other honest.

              I can objectively and logically demonstrate it for you if you like. If you cannot hear a position, you cannot refute it. If you cannot refute it, you cannot teach people why it is a foolish position to take. Thus you unwittingly plant the seeds of destruction for everything you hold dear by allowing contrary notions to grow in secret. In an ideal world it would always go like this: Give me your best argument that I may kick the everlovin shit out of it publicly and destroy your ideology for all time.

              --
              Save Ferris!
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @12:14PM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @12:14PM (#552242)

                I don't know that non-censorship is in the founding documents or not, I just know you'd have to get rid of myself, the Deucalion formerly known as juggs, and NCommander at the very least to even make the tiniest inroad towards censorship.

                Look, if there's nothing legally binding, as strong as it may be, the assurance is not a foolproof guarantee.
                Now, when it comes the S/N, I'm not actually asking for it - S/N alone is inconsequential for the larger ctx of the entire social phenomenon.

                But if you remember, this has been raised as an example for the larger context of the "underlying ideal" - without casting this ideal in a law, the ideal as valuable as the paper of a verbal contract - nice to have, but not a reliable reality (long gone are the times when two gentlemen shaking hand over a deal was all that was needed).

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @12:24PM (1 child)

                  Legally binding isn't a guarantee either. The board can always vote out any rule they don't like because a majority of them are also the only shareholders. Granted it's more difficult than just ignoring or "interpreting" the First Amendment but if it's good enough for the government it's good enough for private entities.

                  Which ties in with my point. Guarantees by the government not being worth the paper they're printed on, all you really have is the unwillingness of the people to put up with certain types of shenanigans. Thus it's absolutely crucial to this society that we maintain a majority of people who carry that unwillingness.

                  --
                  Save Ferris!
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @03:33PM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:33PM (#552358)

                    Legally binding isn't a guarantee either.

                    I meant to say legally binding has better guarantees than just a verbal promise (maybe marginally better, but better anyway).

                    Guarantees by the government not being worth the paper they're printed on, all you really have is the unwillingness of the people to put up with certain types of shenanigans

                    I have a saying that I hold dear: "a cat can be skinned in more than a single way" (to any given problem, there ain't a single solution). So no, I can't believe that's "all you really have".
                    What other solutions are there? I don't know, I'm not living in your country.
                    For example, change the way you elect a government and/or what power the govt has, so that shenanigans are not even possible in the first place. Look, the Switzerland's direct democracy seems to make them less prone to govt misbehaviour.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @03:17PM (1 child)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:17PM (#552342)

                I can objectively and logically demonstrate it for you if you like. If you cannot hear a position, you cannot refute it. If you cannot refute it, you cannot teach people why it is a foolish position to take. Thus you unwittingly plant the seeds of destruction for everything you hold dear by allowing contrary notions to grow in secret.

                Are you serious? Or are you trying to slip it in as a "torpedo" then assert "it is called a joke, son"?

                Anyway, I'm going to treat it as serious. And with all my seriousness I'm going to say: this is misleading by omission, and it isn't objective one.

                1. incomplete - "If you cannot hear a position, you cannot refute it.". Set in equivalent form (a => b is equiv with !b => !a) "To refute a position, you need to hear it first"
                  The underlying incorrect assumption: the positions are adopted by an individual only by "hearing" them.
                  There are heaps of position which are formed in the mind people people without being heard as such from somewhere else: from delusions and prejudices to ideals and hope to modelling assumptions and hypotheses ones generate in the not-yet-published research the ones conduct by themselves
                  This world is awash with the first ones, especially prejudices. Mathematicians are eating the latest on everyday basis. Most of the normal people jave

                  To be completely correct, this part needs the following additions: "You cannot refute position without becoming aware of them" (which is natural, refuting a position is a conscious act). "To become aware of the positions of others, one needs to 'hear' them"

                  Bottom line "incomplete":

                  • free speech/liberty of expression is only necessary to assess the position publicly held by others, positions not known to you previously
                  • free speech/liberty of expression is not sufficient to refute a (pro)position - those left aside include:
                    - positions unconsciously held by the one meant to refute them;
                    - positions not shared by others - liberty of speech does not mean obligation of speech
                    - positions which cannot be refuted (objectively demonstrated or undecidable positions)
                    - positions the would-be-refuter refuses to even cast a judgement over them, much less refute
                2. not objective - "Thus you unwittingly plant the seeds of destruction for everything you hold dear by allowing contrary notions to grow in secret.". Oh, wow!

                  Holding a position dear is (highly) likely subjective, because "dear" means nothing for the soundness of that position (unless the only thing you hold dear is the adherence to sound positions; and if you say this, I'm not going to believe you - no one has such a dispassionate live without being dead)
                  It is safe to bet notions contrary to everything you hold dear are growing in "secret" all the time - it's just that you don't hear them because the free speech doesn't mean "obligatory speech". And it will happen more frequently if your attitude is "Give me your best argument that I may kick the everlovin shit out of it"

                  And wait, there's more! If the positions you hold dear are objectively unsound (and you may not beeven aware of some of your positions) then everything about the "we need free speech" part of your argumentation is useless. Your measuring stick will be "Does it fit my everlovin measuring stick? If not, it is unsound, no matter how objectively sound that point is"

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @03:50PM

                  1) Incorrect. It is not possible to understand someone else's position without knowing what that position entails. You are not a mind reader, thus it must be spoken or otherwise communicated to you by them. Refuting a position you simply assume someone else has is disingenuous at best but more likely simply you intentionally building a strawman.

                  2) Only the fact that not arguing against positions that oppose your own is allowing them to grow unchecked need be objective, which it is. The actual positions are irrelevant.

                  Now I've objectively and logically shown you precisely why free speech is desirable. If you have further refutations you'd like to attempt, I'm happy to shoot them down as well.

                  --
                  Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday August 11, @02:42AM (4 children)

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:42AM (#552059) Journal

          When federally funded institutions start shutting down one side of the discourse, rather than policing the tyrants, the government has acted in contradiction if it's duty.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @02:52AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:52AM (#552066)

            When federally funded institutions start shutting down one side of the discourse

            Which maybe applies** to WMATA case, but not to private citizens shouting down speakers of other citizens.
            Or were you having something else in mind?
            (remember? I was replying to the "Well with liberals shouting down conservative speakers" - that was the context. I made no generalizations to others)

            ---

            ** probably, I don't know if WMATA receives federal funding

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:37AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12, @01:37AM (#552680)

              "Federally funded" is irrelevant. The First Amendment applies to all governments in the U.S.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 12, @04:42AM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 12, @04:42AM (#552728)

                Not all institutions are govt.
                Private institutions aren't bound to allow free speech in the space they control unless, in my understanding (which might be wrong), they receive govt funds; in which case the most govt can do is to cease funding them.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @05:03PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @05:03PM (#552427) Journal

            When federally funded institutions start shutting down one side of the discourse, rather than policing the tyrants, the government has acted in contradiction if it's duty.

            They aren't doing that, though. They banned a PETA ad, an ACLU ad, a Plan-B birth control ad, and a Milo Yianopolous ad. That's all across the spectrum and possibly leaning a bit left (depending on how you classify the ACLU).

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @04:50PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @04:50PM (#552418) Journal

        Well with liberals shouting down conservative speakers you pretty much have to agree there are varying opinions on the freedom of speech.

        People speaking, and people protesting that speech, are both freedom of expression. You seem to think one is more valuable than the other.

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

      by hemocyanin (186) on Friday August 11, @02:24AM (#552043)

      The Bill of Rights is under attack from every corner, the Establishment Right seeking to undermine the 1st Amendment (prayers galore, tax money for churches, etc. etc.), the Establishment Left the 2nd (yep, they do want to take away the guns), and both the 4th (mass surveillance is a bipartisan project). The 5th is there too, with Bush doing due process free detention, and Obama due process free execution (both based on secret law ^w legal memos).

      And then the rank and file on left right tend to fall in line.

      The problem is that if you work toward eliminating rights you hate, sooner or later, they come for the rights you love.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:51PM (#552537)

        Yeah, there was an article in Rolling Stone saying we need to repeal the 2nd amendment by saying it is now an outdated idea.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:43AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:43AM (#552166)

      So, no problem with the NRA running the second amendment as an ad?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:08AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @07:08AM (#552176)
        Sure, why not? But only if the slogan is as low key and lacking in overt commentary as the ACLU's "We The People".
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @12:25PM (1 child)

          Why "only if" if I may ask?

          --
          Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:48PM (#552303)
            In principle *I* personally would have no objections to such an ad. But we're not to run afoul of the WMATA's rules, which the ACLU itself doesn't seem to have even violated despite the objections.
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @04:53PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @04:53PM (#552421) Journal

        So, no problem with the NRA running the second amendment as an ad?

        Personally, no.

        However, the policy says no political ads so NRA, PETA and ACLU (from the article) would all run afoul of that.

        Amusingly, the Milo Yianolpolous ad (also FTA) clearly doesn't! It's just a picture of him and an ad for his book.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @12:38AM (#551977)

    Ads with aborted fetuses!

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11, @12:43AM (12 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday August 11, @12:43AM (#551984) Journal

    For real, or Poe's law? [bennettandbennett.com]. Unfortunately many people are serious about it. There goes the neighborhood. When people can vote away your rights, it's time to take a closer look at the problems of democracy.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11, @12:48AM (11 children)

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

      Whoops! Definitely not for real [rollingstone.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:04AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @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, @02:24AM (1 child)

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @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, @02:55AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @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, @02:47AM

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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @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, @02:35AM (1 child)

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @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, @02:57AM

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

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

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

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

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

        --
        Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 12, @01:00AM (2 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 12, @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.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Saturday August 12, @01:03PM (1 child)

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday August 12, @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.

            --
            Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 12, @03:19PM

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 12, @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

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by linkdude64 on Friday August 11, @12:45AM (6 children)

    by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @12:45AM (#551985)

    I hope the NRA then takes the hint and purchases a couple of ads with the Second Amendment on them. Not too many, because it's an utter waste of money, and liberal news outlets will do all of the advertising for them via outrage anyway.

    Funny enough that they would need to take ads out to inform their target audience about this, though - ask any American who loves their country to quote the First Amendment be they Muslim, Christian, or Athiest, in any field of employment, and they will likely be able to directly quote it. Immigrants and citizens of any race or creed who live here only for our wealth and welfare, yet care absolutely nothing for the culture, history, or future of the country are the ones who need reminding, I would imagine.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:09AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:09AM (#551998)

      You're going to be greatly dismayed at the number of people who will pass your test.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @01:30AM (1 child)

        Truth. I can't do it myself. My brain doesn't organize that way. It only files the relevant/important information rather than all of the information. Like I couldn't tell you verbatim anything anyone has ever said to me in my entire life but I could summarize interesting conversations I had nearly thirty years ago while astoundingly drunk.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:49PM (#552370)

          Yeah, sorry, the first amendment is pretty long, I can't quote it directly, but the second I'd have an easier time with.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 11, @02:59PM (2 children)

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday August 11, @02:59PM (#552318) Homepage Journal

      They used to teach the constitutions (US and Illinois) in school here. I'm not sure if they still do, considering the number of people on the internet (some of whom are journalists) who seem to be ignorant of grammar, I'm pretty sure they no longer teach grammar in grammar school so they may no longer teach the constitution, either.

      --
      Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday August 11, @12:49AM (2 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Friday August 11, @12:49AM (#551989)
    "advertisements "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions""

    So, all advertisements are banned then?

    --
    "Unix? These savages aren't even circumcised!"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:17AM (#552001)

      So, all advertisements are banned then?

      And this would be bad for us how exactly?

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11, @03:14AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @03:14AM (#552085)

      So, all advertisements are banned then?

      Not all.
      For instance, ads for products so new to the market that the public doesn't have any opinion on them as yet.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:04AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @01:04AM (#551995)

    The only folks making a controversy here are the folks claiming they don't want one.
    That is, folks running the transit company.

    To say that running it will affect public policy is nuts.
    The 1st amendment is public policy.
    Not running it is what they hope will affect public policy.

    The ACLU may be extreme sometimes, but this time they seem to have found a proper cause.
    Hopefully the courts will educate the transit company.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:28AM (#552047)

      I wholly support extreme support of the Bill of Rights because it is being eroded at an ever accelerating pace -- that's one reason I'm a card carrying member of the NRA _and_ the ACLU. No joke. If there was an "in your face, not a single inch" group for the 4th and another for the 5th, I'd carry their card too.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday August 11, @02:42AM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday August 11, @02:42AM (#552060) Journal

      Can you name one instance of ACLU "extremism"?

      I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:58PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @06:58PM (#552499)

        "Can you name one instance of ACLU "extremism"?"

        From their wiki, how about these?

        The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns rather than an individual right, despite the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

        In 2000, Marvin Johnson, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, stated that proposed anti-spam legislation infringed on free speech by denying anonymity and by forcing spam to be labeled as such, "Standardized labeling is compelled speech." He also stated, "It's relatively simple to click and delete."

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 12, @01:11AM

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 12, @01:11AM (#552666) Journal

          That's extremism?? Wow, people really are getting soft!

          Just so you know, I agree with them on the spam thing. Anonymity is an essential freedom, spam or not. And the forced labeling obviously wouldn't work because it is based on somebody's opinion. Whose? Who knows? But we all know where such a thing would lead.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:02AM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @02:02AM (#552031)

    I had the illusion that the United States is a English speaking country..
    If people are not willing to learn English to live in US, maybe they should move elsewhere.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @02:30AM (9 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @02:30AM (#552048)

      Has it occurred to you that some of the people who most need to see and understand the First Amendment may be Arabic speakers? Islam isn't real big on freedom of anything, in case you'd not noticed. This is a good way to speed assimilation along.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @02:41AM (8 children)

        Agreed. This here great melting pot does not work like "bring your culture in, shove it in everyone's faces, and refuse to adapt to ours". The deal is if you come here you adapt to us and we assimilate anything of your culture we find valuable to our own.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:14AM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:14AM (#552086)

          And you were doing so well in this thread. You're a borg piece of crap.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @03:36AM

            Sorry, bout that. I am not, nor ever will be, a dipshit globalist who believes everyone has a right to their own culture except us.

            --
            Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @04:56AM (4 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @04:56AM (#552124)

            He's not entirely wrong you know. Most Muslims come from cultures that are fundamentally incompatible with the US's (ostensible...) values. I don't think it's unfair to demand that the law of the land be adhered to, because you can be sure as death and taxes that if an American were to emigrate to Saudi Arabia s/he would be expected to follow their laws.

            Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Even if someone is right for the wrong reasons, even if someone is almost always wrong, right is still right when it happens. Let's not commit the genetic fallacy here.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:14PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:14PM (#552338)

              Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Even if someone is right for the wrong reasons, even if someone is almost always wrong, right is still right when it happens. Let's not commit the genetic fallacy here.

              Unless if they're a conservative poster you hate here on SN, in which case fuck 'em

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @03:53PM (2 children)

                Conservative? Bite my ass, you pinko, commie progtard. I am nothing of the sort.

                --
                Save Ferris!
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11, @05:00PM (1 child)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11, @05:00PM (#552425)

                  True, I said the wrong thing. You aren't a conservative by any definition of the word: you're a reactionary. I'll be more careful in the future :) Hugs'n'love!

                  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @05:04PM

                    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @05:04PM (#552431) Journal

                    Or possibly just a Republican. Republicans are definitely not Conservative anymore.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @04:58PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @04:58PM (#552424) Journal

          Agreed. This here great melting pot does not work like "bring your culture in, shove it in everyone's faces, and refuse to adapt to ours"**

          ** Offer does not apply to Christianity

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday August 11, @02:34AM (1 child)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Friday August 11, @02:34AM (#552053)

      Foreigners are, at least theoretically, afforded 1st Amendment privileges. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub [georgetown.edu] (note, PDF). So it makes sense to provide information in a language they understand.

      Upon examination, there is far less to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and associ-ation, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:34PM (#552405)

        They are definitely given the Equal Protection clause of the 14th, otherwise slavery would still be allowed as long as you were bringing in foreigners.

    • (Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 11, @02:43AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11, @02:43AM (#552061) Homepage Journal

      It's what my son Eric calls virtue signaling. They don't expect anyone to read a sign in Arabic. They expect you to see the sign, see they wrote in Arabic, and then you think they're smart because they can write in Arabic. They don't give a fuck whether you can read it, they only care that you're impressed with them speaking a foreign language. Believe me, if they wanted Arabs to read their signs in Washington, they'd put them up in my hotel. In the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Honestly, it's like Mecca, it's crawling with Arabs. With Saudis and more. They go there like it's a pilgrimage. And the Trump Organization gets a cut. KA-CHING! The ACLU's signs are very welcome at my hotel. If they pony up. But they won't because they don't care about Arabs. They're trying to reach you, if you're in the 18-49 demo. 🇺🇸

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jelizondo on Friday August 11, @02:49AM (3 children)

      by jelizondo (653) on Friday August 11, @02:49AM (#552064)

      Right because when the British arrived the place was uninhabited and therefore the first language ever spoken here was English!

      You idiot! America was inhabited and then many pieces were taken from other countries with people speaking other languages BEFORE they were forcefully or otherwise made part of the U.S., i.e., Texas, Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico (Spanish), Florida from Spain (Spanish), Louisiana from the French (French).

      If you want to speak English move to Japan or some other place, because you see even in the U.K. many other languages are spoken and are official, same as with the U.S. of A.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @03:01AM (#552074)

        On California voting forms. Personally given the demographics here, I am surprised Farsi, Arabic and Sanskrit aren't included as well.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:17AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:17AM (#552111)

        And now the country is the United States and the de facto language is English, if not 'American.' I am, in plurality, Native American - Sioux. Yet here I am speaking 'American' and even living abroad eating hotdogs and hamburgers. And I hold no ill will to any other person in the country for what their ancestors did to mine. It doesn't even make any sense to me. The nature of the world is, for better or for worse, that the strong overcome the weak. People need to learn to assimilate and get over themselves.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11, @12:36PM

          Preach it, my wagon-burning brother. No, our ancestors weren't enslaved; they were just damned near wiped from the face of the earth. And yet the vast majority of us get the hell over it. We have completely integrated and even thrived in our reality. Some folks really could take a lesson.

          --
          Save Ferris!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @05:45AM (#552144)
    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 11, @03:01PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday August 11, @03:01PM (#552324) Homepage Journal

      "I had the illusion that the United States is a English speaking country."

      Apparently not! You certainly suck at the language. ESL?

      --
      Free Martian whores! [mcgrewbooks.com]
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:08AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11, @04:08AM (#552109)

    Not a single person has proposed a law that would violate the first amendment. The ACLU running this ad is implying that, for instance, the proposed ban on nationals from various nations would be against the first amendment. Or that Trump speaking negatively of sensationalistic journalists is against the first amendment. This is in no way true.

    If the ACLU had simply run a plain text ad of the first amendment in English without attaching their name to it let alone having it translated into Arabic, I have no doubt it would have been accepted. The ever so tolerant group this is targeted towards may have even become confused and vandalized such evangelism of 'freeze peach.' In any case, it is not an ad the ACLU would have run - because it would not have portrayed a clear political position. This ad, however, does. I generally tend to side with the ACLU, but I think this is one where they've clearly lost their way. Politicizing a non-political item is still politicizing, which is against the standards of advertising for the D.C. Metro.

    Imagine the NRA tried to run ads with the second amendment and their name attached. That alone would likely be rejected for the same reason, even though that's vastly less political than the implications of the ACLU translating the constitution into Arabic.

    • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday August 11, @08:39AM

      by moondrake (2658) on Friday August 11, @08:39AM (#552203)

      It is bizarre that you seem think that stating who funded the advert, or translating it in another language somehow politicizes it because of (I presume) what other people might read into it.

      So quoting the constitution is only allowed in English and anonymous?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 11, @05:10PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 11, @05:10PM (#552435) Journal

      Politicizing a non-political item is still politicizing, which is against the standards of advertising for the D.C. Metro.

      I think they probably did that on purpose. This advertising ban has been on their radar for a while. I wouldn't be surprised if they submitted a purposely borderline ad so they would have standing to sue.

(1)