Land of Free Speech

[Arnaud]

NEW, I was not making a legal argument.

Some have suggested that the t-shirt was the utmost act of provocation.

I remember a "legit" store in NY in the 80's that sold many anti-lawyers t-shirts, one even suggesting getting a machine gun to wipe them off the planet... This clearly was provocation.

A t-shirt stating "Give peace a chance" is not provocation.

Now, we don't know all the facts. Maybe the guy behaved improperly. We're just talking about the t-shirt, here.

 

[Lawman]

in terms of legal prohabitions the Supreme Court has
said that free speech is not "absolute at all times and
under all circumstances." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
In particular, so called "fighting words" are not covered.
Those are words that inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breech of the peace. Also called words that
"naturally tend to provoke violent resentment." Thats
in Cantwell v. Connecticut and UWM Post v Univ of Wisconsin
Board of Regents.

Soooooo if their was a local ordinance prohibiting such "speech"
it might hold up in court as fighting words. At times of war
attacking the President might "tend to provoke resentment"
like a KKK shirt at a NAACP meeting.

 

[DivePartner1]

pufferfish once bubbled...
Divepartner, ma vieille branch, one day at the Club de Castor over une biere I will tell you how we have learned to live with the Quebecois. Date a French woman and you will come to enjoy French women's company.

Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up for this cultural experience? :mean:

 

[DivePartner1]

And following Lawman's line of thinking, this morning's article posted on law.com (collection of legal news) indicates the accused has a history of decades in "the movement." This was a planned media event. Only Al Sharpton was missing.

 

[Arnaud]

Lawman, I've read Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Interesting. Not really relevant to the case (public v. private property), but interesting anyway.

On top of it, I doubt very much that "give peace a chance" meets the standard of " the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"...

That or Leno and Letterman are headed for jail...

 

[DivePartner1]

No, I think Lawman has this right. In the US, this will be viewed as a property case not a speech case, with the right of the owner to control how licensees (shoppers to most folks) behave on its property. Sort of like you and I have the right to control the behavior of visitors in our houses.

In New York where this occured , the highest court has found no free speech right that would entitle citizens to make statements such as handing out leaflets in a private shopping center. Shad Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 NY2d 496. Malls are usually private property. A mall "is not the functional equivalent of a government and its conduct is not the equivalent of governmental conduct" sayeth the Shad court.

 

[chris_b]

The mall apparently wants to have the charges dropped. They appear not to be appreciating the publicity...

 

[Arnaud]

DivePartner1 once bubbled...
No, I think Lawman has this right. In the US, this will be viewed as a property case not a speech case, with the right of the owner to control how licensees (shoppers to most folks) behave on its property. Sort of like you and I have the right to control the behavior of visitors in our houses.

In New York where this occured , the highest court has found no free speech right that would entitle citizens to make statements such as handing out leaflets in a private shopping center. Shad Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 NY2d 496. Malls are usually private property. A mall "is not the functional equivalent of a government and its conduct is not the equivalent of governmental conduct" sayeth the Shad court.

That's exactly the point I was making. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire was about the member of a sect distributing leaflets on the street . The one thing we have established and where everybody agrees is that the First Amendment is not applicable to private property.

 

[pufferfish]

Hey this legal stuff is kind of interesting I must say.
From reading this summary on the free speach vs. private property debate it appears that had the guy done this in New Jersey he might not have been arrested.

Assembly on Private Property

Ok boys lets hear your opinions.

 

[Dectek]

self edit