Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Windbag, Dec 13, 2012.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You
I think you missed something on example 2.
The first article suggested a law student might want to challenge it, but unless some is charged and convicted they have no standing to do so. Calling someone an a-hole in an email might be rude, but not criminal, I seriously doubt this one would withstand the first challenge.
Forgot the link to the second, thanks.
Both of your examples are the nonsense of small, local governments.
And the second one is from 1958.
in connecticut, it's illegal to walk across the street on your hands
in missouri, it's illegal to drive in a car with an uncaged bear.
Some of these laws I really want to know what prompted them.
You can fish from the neck of a giraffe in Tennessee.
You need to be consistent in your demand for limited government, which you and other conservatives have failed to do.
As to the ordinance, until someone is actually in violation of the measure, its difficult to make a First Amendment analysis. It could be assumed defenders of the ordinance would claim a fighting words exemption to protected speech, but given the venue it would be difficult to determine if the intent was to cause the hearer (or reader, in this case) to respond in a violent or unlawful manner.
You don't normally get spontaneous violent response to an email or post on social media, that would tend to be premeditated. Normally fighting words are spoken face to face.
Separate names with a comma.