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

[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

Post #233,913 by ben_tilly 11/13/05 3:47:26 PM Reply	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 by boxley 11/13/05 9:23:24 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 11/13/05 9:42:46 PM Reply	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)

Welcome to IWETHEY!