And now, for some actual government censorshop

[colfax_m]

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

Not much. People can be charged until unconstitutional laws. That’s why I hope they appeal. The precedent on this is pretty clear.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Those laws would be incompatible with the first amendment.

 

[Crepitus]

Those laws would be incompatible with the first amendment.

Nope.

 

[colfax_m]

Nope.

Why not? The government must have a compelling reason to ban speech. There’s no public safety issue here. No one is at risk. It’s just a word that some people don’t like.

It’s protected speech.

 

[Crepitus]

Why not? The government must have a compelling reason to ban speech. There’s no public safety issue here. No one is at risk. It’s just a word that some people don’t like.

It’s protected speech.

Use your head, man.

 

[colfax_m]

Use your head, man.

Did you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Wrong.

Obscenity is not entitled to First Amendment protections.

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong.

Obscenity is not entitled to First Amendment protections.

Obscenity is not protected.

But this doesn’t fall under the definition of obscene. Obscene material not protected by the first amendment has to be sexual. This isn’t.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that prohibiting obscene speech is not un-Constitutional.

See: Roth v. United States (1957), Miller v. California (1973).

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

I didn't say it was protected only as long as it serves a purpose. But every right has limits. If such displays of swearing is considered harmful to society or to children, then it will not be considered protected.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

What?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obscenity is not protected.

But this doesn’t fall under the definition of obscene. Obscene material not protected by the first amendment has to be sexual. This isn’t.

Read the case law.

You’re not required to like or agree with it, but the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the First Amendment.

And that case law holds that obscenity is not entitled to First Amendment protections.

 

[Dadoalex]

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

I don't know.
SCOTUS long ago established "community standards" could require people to remove or change displays that the "Community" considers vulgar.

Since the only signs at issue are those containing "F**K" then it is entirely probable that the Community Standards argument will succeed on appeal.

Now, if they were to order them to take down all signs, then that is definitely over the line.

 

[colfax_m]

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that prohibiting obscene speech is not un-Constitutional.

See: Roth v. United States (1957), Miller v. California (1973).

The question really then is what is obscene speech.

Roth v US and Miller v California both were about depictions of sex.

That’s not the case here. Obscenity requires that it be in some way erotic. There’s nothing erotic about these problems signs. See Cohen v California.

 

[colfax_m]

I didn't say it was protected only as long as it serves a purpose. But every right has limits. If such displays of swearing is considered harmful to society or to children, then it will not be considered protected.

Harmful to society isn’t very specific. What’s so harmful to society about the sign?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Harmful to society isn’t very specific. What’s so harmful to society about the sign?

Well, people believe that swearing is harmful. They stop kids swearing in schools, for example.

You might think it's not harmful, others do. They're the ones in charge/

 

[colfax_m]

Well, people believe that swearing is harmful. They stop kids swearing in schools, for example.

You might think it's not harmful, others do. They're the ones in charge/

People believe lots of things are harmful. Doesn’t give them a right to make it illegal.

They may be in charge but they can’t override the constitution.

 

[Death-Ninja]

The only good democrats are dead democrats, never forget that democrats!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Harmful to society isn’t very specific. What’s so harmful to society about the sign?

You never had kids?

Guess you run around naked in your front yard..

 

[colfax_m]

You never had kids?

Guess you run around naked in your front yard..

I have a kid. That doesn’t mean you can outlaw speech.

You can’t hide everything from them. Don’t like it? Avert their eyes or something. Not my problem.