cwalton505 t1_j844g2v wrote
Reply to comment by TheToneKing in Bakery Owner Sues [Conway] New Hampshire Town After Officials Demand He Paint Over Donut Mural Made by High Schoolers by ArbitraryOrder
The citizens are the government and are the officials. If they want to change it they can. A business sign isn't exactly protected under the first amendment, unless you really really loved the citizens united Supreme Court ruling and want corporations to be further unfettered.
cat-gun t1_j84zzyd wrote
Yes, I want people to be able to show films that criticize government officials, regardless of their funding source. This is also the position of the ACLU:
" The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again."
I also favor letting bakers paint donut murals on their walls.
cwalton505 t1_j851fb5 wrote
I'm also in favor of donut murals on a donut shop, but lets figure it out so we have laws that make sense and we are in line with what we have all agreed upon.
TurretLauncher t1_j853vu2 wrote
This is the speech of high school students.
cwalton505 t1_j856z7s wrote
Dude you're 20 years late to make that comment accurate. But for your enjoyment: No cap, fr fr.
TurretLauncher t1_j858r9r wrote
It's literally "a mural that local high school students created last summer."
cwalton505 t1_j85ga2p wrote
I don't see how that changes anything from a legal standpoint. And I will reiterate the sign is fine and they should adjust the bylaws.
TurretLauncher t1_j85k0ex wrote
Then you obviously have no understanding of the relevant legal principles.
> Leavitt’s Country Bakery owner Sean Young teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file the lawsuit, which argues that Conway’s sign code violates his and other town residents’ First Amendment rights.
There is an important difference between these two. Leavitt's speech (e.g., the store's logo) falls within the First Amendment category known as 'commercial speech':
> The “different degree of protection” accorded commercial speech has a number of consequences as regards other First Amendment doctrine. For instance, somewhat broader times, places, and manner regulations are to be tolerated, and the rule against prior restraints may be inapplicable. Further, disseminators of commercial speech are not protected by the overbreadth doctrine.
However, in this case Leavitt simply provided a space (in First Amendment terms, a 'forum') within which the local high school students could create their own speech.
Murals are within the First Amendment category known as 'artistic expression'. And since the high school students did not charge any fee for the art they produced, this artistic expression was by definition not created for commercial purposes, but was instead created as “pure speech” which as a matter of First Amendment law is fully entitled to comprehensive protection.
cwalton505 t1_j85kvzz wrote
Let's see what the courts say over us two idiots then eh?
TurretLauncher t1_j85nj63 wrote
> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
US Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
cwalton505 t1_j85rze8 wrote
Say what you want, agree or disagree as much as you want, but there are sign laws everywhere.
TurretLauncher t1_j85szo1 wrote
> IJ’s fight against similar violations of the First Amendment rights of small business owners throughout the country includes a 2020 victory that allowed a North Dakota saloon to keep up its mural, a 2017 win for a Florida video game store that wanted to display an inflatable Mario in front of its store, and a 2013 ruling which permitted a California gym to advertise on a sandwich board out front.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments