Post #233,852
11/13/05 12:43:40 AM
|
Different situation altogether
Your examples are all of people being allowed to not do something that they do not want to do.
This is not that type of situation.
This is a public facility (a school) that wishes to allow job recruiting. Now a group of people want to disallow one employer but allow others. You examples of shopping at WalMart don't apply. Your examples of pricing differently to different customers also does not apply.
This is about access to public facilities in an equal fashion.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #233,855
11/13/05 1:00:25 AM
|
There's something basic at stake here
In order for a court to say that the law should be rejected, the court has to have a justification for rejecting it. That is if someone wants to say that the city can't do this, the burden of proof is on them to prove it.
You've complained that it is discrimination, and discrimination is not allowed. I've pointed out that lots of discrimination is allowed. In fact you're only not allowed to discriminate based on a narrowly defined list of specific cases. (And the legal justification for those exceptions is open to question.) That my examples are different from this case is irrelevant - their purpose is to establish that discrimination is allowed by default. They did that.
So unless you are of the opinion that judges should create law (which I don't think you are), then your position that a court should strike this law down should be backed up with justification for why a judge should have that authority.
I'm asking you to present that justification.
Thank you,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #233,868
11/13/05 10:35:12 AM
|
And I'm telling you that I think its different
because it is a measure of equal access that I think already exists in the law.
We have a different opinioni on what law exists...but not being a lawyer I don't have a library of case law and a bunch of lackies to research the specifics.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #233,912
11/13/05 3:24:50 PM
|
In short, I'm wasting my breath
Because your opinion is already made up, and you're uninterested in producing something as mundane as "facts" to support it.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #233,922
11/13/05 6:42:27 PM
|
Box gave you one
I am of the opninion there are more. And yes, I'm comfortable enough in that knowledge to disagree with you without bothering to spend an hour searching the web to prove you wrong.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #233,957
11/13/05 9:44:58 PM
|
Yes, boxley did. But even if he didn't, you wouldn't have.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #233,982
11/14/05 8:22:49 AM
|
For the stated reasons
You imagined a "gotcha" in my position which, based on my understanding of the law, was not a "gotcha" at all...and since I didn't care enough to prove to you what I already was comfortable in my knowledge of, you decided to take offense.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #233,877
11/13/05 11:48:18 AM
|
lets try some case law shall we?
its called viewpoint discrimination, it attackes the first ammendment "[I]t appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to those who advocate military service. The Board then refused, without a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated, "to permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views . . . is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees." . . . In other words, "the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." . . . Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public forum. its clear although the complainant in the above case is anti military, you cannot restrict viewpoint presentation (recruitment) in public school. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #233,913
11/13/05 3:47:26 PM
|
Can you say where that case is from?
Context makes a huge difference. I can't tell how closely it applies in this case.
I do know that freedom of speech means less than you might expect. For instance remember the [link|http://www.savethepinebush.org/NewsArt/XGates/Protest.html|tshirt eviction] from a mall? The mall eventually dropped the case because of the publicity, but in conversations with a lawyer at the time I was told that, had it gone to court, there was little doubt that the mall would win. Malls are private property, and may eject whomever they want, whenever they want, for any reason that they want as long as it is not one of the reasons given in the Civil Rights Act. If you refuse to leave private property when requested, you are guilty of tresspass. Apparently wearing a t-shirt is not exactly the same thing as free speech.
I can't tell from what you quote what your case was about. But I'm going to guess that some government organization ("the Board") accepted military advertisements but not non-military advertisements in some forum. Depending on the details, the San Francisco people are going to have to be careful to not violate that precedent. However I think that if they both deny military recruiters and do not provide a platform for anti-military spokespeople, they are fine. That is, freedom of speech only applies if you're providing a platform for speech. Don't provide the platform, and nobody can fault you for not letting someone specific speak.
Of course if the school provided a platform for people who hate the military to come in and give special presentations to the school, then didn't allow the military to present their case as well, then it looks like your case might apply pretty well indeed.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #233,950
11/13/05 9:23:24 PM
|
hmm, thought I linked it, here ya go
[link|http://www.efn.org/~eugpeace/lawyerletter.htm|http://www.efn.org/~.../lawyerletter.htm] and another, perhaps better one [link|http://www.doe.state.in.us/safety/legalad.html|http://www.doe.state...fety/legalad.html] Thus a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the discussion of any topic, or to the entire public for the discussion of certain topics, or some combination of the two. "Once the state has created a limited public forum. its ability to impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that forum is quite restricted[.] Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." Id., at 1475, citing to Perry Education Assoc. v. Perry Local Education Assoc., 460 U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955 (1983). Once the state creates a limited public forum, ie recruiters of firms seeking employees, peace corp etc. Note again "and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest" there is no compelling state/city/muni interest in restricting access to an arm of the Federal Government unless in a state of open rebellion and insurrection, although SF is constantly flirting with that, they havnt seceded yet. Case law is clear. Now they can use local laws that prohibit organizations that prohibit homosexuality to prevent recruiters but that is not settled law yet, its working its way thru the courts. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #233,955
11/13/05 9:42:46 PM
|
That does look applicable, thanks
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
