And now, for some actual government censorshop

[OldLady]

Dekster
Duh

 

[colfax_m]

All rights come with limitations and they also come with responsibilities. This isn't protected by anything.

Sure it is. There’s no harm to society by this speech. There’s no public interest in removing this sign. This speech is protected.

 

[jknowgood]

YES!!!! Those banners should be illegal There are kids about!

Oh shut up you loons could careless about kids. Letting 6 year olds try to change their gender. Profanity is the least we need to worry about.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure it is. There’s no harm to society by this speech. There’s no public interest in removing this sign. This speech is protected.

The speech of professing support or hatred for a politician is fine. The swearing is not. Say it nicely and it's not an issue.

 

[colfax_m]

The speech of professing support or hatred for a politician is fine. The swearing is not. Say it nicely and it's not an issue.

Swearing is protected. There is no constitutional requirement to be nice.

 

[Crepitus]

A charming New Jersey couple is quite displeased with the current administration and publicly expressed this displeasure.

An ordinance is fining them $250 a day due to its use of profanity and has lost in court to defend it.

This is unconstitutional and I hope they are able to appeal. Government cannot shut down speech simply for using a profanity.

N.J. woman must remove anti-Biden F-bomb signs or face $250-a-day fines, judge rules

The Roselle Park homeowner has a week to remove the three profane flags and may still appeal the decision to Superior Court. The signs remained on display Friday morning.

www.nj.com

Actually yes, they can indeed demand removal of the F-bomb.

 

[Colin norris]

A charming New Jersey couple is quite displeased with the current administration and publicly expressed this displeasure.

An ordinance is fining them $250 a day due to its use of profanity and has lost in court to defend it.

This is unconstitutional and I hope they are able to appeal. Government cannot shut down speech simply for using a profanity.

N.J. woman must remove anti-Biden F-bomb signs or face $250-a-day fines, judge rules

The Roselle Park homeowner has a week to remove the three profane flags and may still appeal the decision to Superior Court. The signs remained on display Friday morning.

www.nj.com

You are obviously wrong because they did.
But no doubt you have read the legislation and can show us where you are right.
But you wouldn't disagree if it was an anti trump sign would you?
Very poor cheap shot dickhead

 

[frigidweirdo]

Swearing is protected. There is no constitutional requirement to be nice.

Swearing isn't protected. Lots of things aren't protected. If you see the reasons why the 1A was written, it wasn't to protect swearing, but political speech.

Swearing also isn't prohibited, it's just there.

 

[colfax_m]

Swearing isn't protected. Lots of things aren't protected. If you see the reasons why the 1A was written, it wasn't to protect swearing, but political speech.

Swearing also isn't prohibited, it's just there.

Why wouldn’t swearing be protected? There has to be a compelling state reason to ban it and there is none.

 

[colfax_m]

You are obviously wrong because they did.
But no doubt you have read the legislation and can show us where you are right.
But you wouldn't disagree if it was an anti trump sign would you?
Very poor cheap shot dickhead

Any legislation banning curse words would be unconstitutional.

Cohen v California

 

[Mr Natural]

Nobody's forcing people to read those signs.

 

[badger2]

It is "purely" putting the F word in the public sphere where it can't be avoided and kids are being exposed to it. Why do we not allow people to walk down the street naked? It's the same principle and I not only agree with the judge, I think the company(s) printing those banners and bumper stickers should be shut down. I would feel exactly the same way if the banners said Fuck Trump.

The mistake was the sign on her property rather than use a stencil and spray paint on the sidewalks. Better luck next time. Suggested viewing: Search for Tomorrow.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why wouldn’t swearing be protected? There has to be a compelling state reason to ban it and there is none.

Because each of the parts of the Bill of Rights were introduced for a specific purpose. Sometimes to achieve such a purpose other things would be protected.

Like the 2A. In order to protect the Militia, they protected the right of citizens to own weapons. Along with owning weapons a few other things were protected too (not carrying arms, unless taken to being bought or sold), but then people could hunt with their weapons. Not protected, but able to be done anyway.

So freedom of speech was protected to allow for an open political system. Saying "Fuck Biden" can be said, as hunting can be done, but it could also be prohibited, as the 2A does not protect hunting, it can be banned in certain places and at certain times.

Saying "fuck Biden" in the street is one thing, having it written down so everyone can see it is something different. Neither are protected, as such, because saying "I don't like Biden" can be said in many ways without swear words being shoved in kids's faces, for example.

 

[colfax_m]

Because each of the parts of the Bill of Rights were introduced for a specific purpose. Sometimes to achieve such a purpose other things would be protected.

Like the 2A. In order to protect the Militia, they protected the right of citizens to own weapons. Along with owning weapons a few other things were protected too (not carrying arms, unless taken to being bought or sold), but then people could hunt with their weapons. Not protected, but able to be done anyway.

So freedom of speech was protected to allow for an open political system. Saying "Fuck Biden" can be said, as hunting can be done, but it could also be prohibited, as the 2A does not protect hunting, it can be banned in certain places and at certain times.

Saying "fuck Biden" in the street is one thing, having it written down so everyone can see it is something different. Neither are protected, as such, because saying "I don't like Biden" can be said in many ways without swear words being shoved in kids's faces, for example.

There's far more reasons to protect freedom of speech outside of an open political system.

There is no compelling state reason to ban this speech and therefore it is protected. There's no caveats in the first amendment. It does not say that speech is protected so long as it serves this purpose.

 

[badger2]

Because each of the parts of the Bill of Rights were introduced for a specific purpose. Sometimes to achieve such a purpose other things would be protected.

Like the 2A. In order to protect the Militia, they protected the right of citizens to own weapons. Along with owning weapons a few other things were protected too (not carrying arms, unless taken to being bought or sold), but then people could hunt with their weapons. Not protected, but able to be done anyway.

So freedom of speech was protected to allow for an open political system. Saying "Fuck Biden" can be said, as hunting can be done, but it could also be prohibited, as the 2A does not protect hunting, it can be banned in certain places and at certain times.

Saying "fuck Biden" in the street is one thing, having it written down so everyone can see it is something different. Neither are protected, as such, because saying "I don't like Biden" can be said in many ways without swear words being shoved in kids's faces, for example.

The nazi strive for pure form won’t suffice to stop offensive language. What was Rushdie’s take on offensive language?

 

[colfax_m]

Actually yes, they can indeed demand removal of the F-bomb.

No. Offensive language including the F-bomb is not prohibited speech.

There is no compelling state purpose for doing so.

 

[Colin norris]

Any legislation banning curse words would be unconstitutional.

Cohen v California

In that case it should specifically mentioned in the constitution. It's not covered by the broad justification of free speech.
Again, they have been prosecuted so it must be illegal and you wouldn't be concerned if they weren't criticising Biden. That's how pathetic your justification is.

 

[colfax_m]

In that case it should specifically mentioned in the constitution. It's not covered by the broad justification of free speech.
Again, they have been prosecuted so it must be illegal and you wouldn't be concerned if they weren't criticising Biden. That's how pathetic your justification is.

The law they prosecuted under is clearly unconstitutional, unless you think that all laws are always constitutional.

The idea that the constitution doesn't mention profanity so it's not covered is absurd. There's no way they could have written the constitution in such a manner. Profanity is absolutely covered under the first amendment. There's no reason that it wouldn't be.

Im a Biden supporter. I'd defend the right of someone to have a sign that says "fuck Biden".

 

[Colin norris]

The law they prosecuted under is clearly unconstitutional, unless you think that all laws are always constitutional.

The idea that the constitution doesn't mention profanity so it's not covered is absurd. There's no way they could have written the constitution in such a manner. Profanity is absolutely covered under the first amendment. There's no reason that it wouldn't be.

Im a Biden supporter. I'd defend the right of someone to have a sign that says "fuck Biden".

Again. They have been charged. Does that say anything to you?
Think about it.

 

[Crepitus]

I would imagine there are local laws against obscene language on signs displayed in public.

No. Offensive language including the F-bomb is not prohibited speech.

There is no compelling state purpose for doing so.