3leftsdoo
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 18,105
- Reaction score
- 5,175
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The public accommodation laws targeted practices that didn't discriminate based on speech or viewpoint but on race. "Whites ONLY!" Etc.
It's also self evidence that not all "speech" is protected (threats, slander/libel etc) and that laws limiting speech (or free association) have to serve a compelling public interest, etc. The CRA public accommodation laws are a compromise, limited exceptions, to the general rule that private property owners can do what they want on their own property. Those that open themselves up to the "public" are subject to rules that prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, etc. but not for many other reasons. My hotel can refuse to host a neo-Nazi event because being a neo-Nazi isn't a protected class, it's not a religion, and I'm not discriminating based on race or national origin.
The question here seems to be whether saying, "KILL ALL THE GAYS!!!" if accompanied by a quote from the bible makes that viewpoint into a religious one that might limit CB's actions here - denying him permission to hold an event/be served biscuits and gravy to spread that view. If a neo-Nazi group preaching genocide requested permission for an event there's no question CB could turn it down.
The OP references this other thread. Ditto. Beef? Just read the other thread - and this one while you're at it - to get up to speed.
With respect, my friend, that was a passing reference to a tangential issue. I'm not about to go traipsing around trying to catch up to irrelevant points in an uncited discussion that is not part of this one. Sorry. Next you'll be asking me to provide citations to support your position.
It is interesting (and extremely scary to me) how the current conservatives on the Court are skewing civil rights all in one direction. On the one hand, they are expanding "religious (read Christian)" rights, firearm rights and property rights, but limiting voting, expression (of not their viewpoint) rights, and freedoms of minorities from discrimination of various types, or application of other rights (due process, press, search, seizure). What's the through line here? Pro- police state, corporate, Christian; anti- citizen, minority? The pattern is obvious and inexorable. Feeling a little like the frog-in-the-pot lately? You should, really, be very afraid.
It was nice (being American) while it lasted.
Cato Institute
The Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) was designated in 1991 to operate a public-access channel in New York City.
The Manhattan Borough President has no control over MNN and chooses only two of the thirteen members of the board of directors.
Jesus Melendez was a sometime contributor to the network who was suspended in 2012 for harassing an employee.
He later produced a video that included harassing and threatening language toward MNN and the staff.
In response, MNN banned the video from further airings as a violation of the network’s zero-tolerance policy for harassment. Melendez and his associate DeeDee Halleck brought a First Amendment claim against MNN, but the initial question was whether the network is a state actor for the purposes of the First Amendment.
I think the BOLDED section narrows it down quite a bit.
Is it free speech when you produce a video that includes harassment and threatening language toward the people who operate the venue you're speaking in?
Of course, as one might guess, actually FINDING the video BY Jesus Papoleto Melendez has been fruitless, which is unfortunate because viewing it may have some bearing.
MNN is a clusterfluck of a place, so who knows what actually happened, but I think the Court was ultimately comfortable in finding as it did due to the unusual and provincial nature of MNN as well as New York's extraordinarily broad definitions of harassment, though Kavanaugh's reasoning is pretty nutty.
No bearing on Facebook et al.
I guess that's true because the majority and the dissent take as a given that the 1A does not apply to private entities except under very limited conditions. The opinions outlined those conditions, and none of them would capture modern social media sites and force them into behaving for the 1A like the government.
Incorrect.
Entirely different situation.
Because you say so, or because you can point to some law or judicial precedent? I know the answer, it's the law according to you, because there is nothing in the reality based world that supports your interpretation of the law.
I have a hard time constructing an argument that Facebook is a "public forum" subject to 1A proscriptions if MNN, which has actual ties to a government entity (if attenuated), is not considered so. That sounds more like wishful thinking than sound analysis. If I had any confidence that the conservatives on the SCOTUS were principled and guided by precedent or sound legal analysis, I'd dismiss that contention out of hand, but they've already demonstrated they are result-oriented rather than legally principled, so I guess any W-A-guess is valid at this point.
Because you say so, or because you can point to some law or judicial precedent? I know the answer, it's the law according to you, because there is nothing in the reality based world that supports your interpretation of the law.
I have a hard time constructing an argument that Facebook is a "public forum" subject to 1A proscriptions if MNN, which has actual ties to a government entity (if attenuated), is not considered so. That sounds more like wishful thinking than sound analysis. If I had any confidence that the conservatives on the SCOTUS were principled and guided by precedent or sound legal analysis, I'd dismiss that contention out of hand, but they've already demonstrated they are result-oriented rather than legally principled, so I guess any W-A-guess is valid at this point.
The problem with the Facebook et al. argument is people making it like the person I responded to rely on the fact that they are REALLY REALLY BIG platforms, arguably near monopolies in their niches. I don't see how the courts write a rule that says, effectively, if you're really BIG different rules apply and you're equivalent to a government, based on your size, but places like DP which aren't really big can censor as they see fit.
IMO, that also confuses the issues. If we're worried about the power of, say, Google, then the answer isn't to force them to adhere to the rules of government when it comes to the 1A but attack the actual problem, which is they are too big, and break them up.
Different situations, as noted.
That definitely is concerning to me - as you say, if the government can simply hire a private contractor and have them violate the 1st Amendment for them, that would seem to definitely violate the spirit and intent of the amendment/law, if not the letter of it.Opinion analysis: Court holds that First Amendment does not apply to private operator of public-access channels - SCOTUSblog
Here are the basic facts:
The NYC government delegated the running of the station to a private company, and the question was whether the private company was bound by the 1A. The conservative block said, NO! The liberal block said, essentially, that when a government delegates functions to a private entity, it's acting as an agent of the government and is bound by the 1A, same as that government.
I'd love to see what the lawyers on here think about that decision. Seems....troubling to me. If government wants to get around the 1A, all it has to do is insert a corporation between it and those whose rights the government would prefer not to respect, and voila - those persons no longer enjoy those rights!
One interesting thing I've seen mentioned in discussion elsewhere is the idea that Facebook et al. are bound by the 1A was pretty much convincingly debunked in the majority and dissent. It was unanimous that opening a forum for speech simply does not mean the private entity must respect the 1A, and is therefore prohibited from viewpoint moderation or discrimination.
Completely different fantasy world, I think. I am aware of NO legal precedent to support the assertion that Facebook is, in any way, a government entity, any more than AT&T, Verizon or Sprint. I have a suggestion: read the decision and dissents. Then, discuss that here.
I think not. Irrelevant, as repeatedly explained. Done. Doing.
Wait, are you actually saying that reading the opinions that are the subject of the OP, and actually discussing THIS topic is irrelevant? That's rich.
Read my previous posts.
I can no longer muster a rational basis to do so.
:3oops:
It's like this: as Jasper pointed out earlier, the Court in this case determined that a public television station, operated on behalf of New York, was not a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. Given that, there isn't room left to create a separate rationale that makes Facebook, Twitter, or any other private "platform" a "public forum" for purposes of the First Amendment. As long as the Court keeps its current makeup, I don't see that changing. As I said earlier, unless they find a political reason to do so. Beyond that, the vet says the horse is dead and can't be revived.
Incorrect. Incorrect. We'll see. Part of the consideration. Bizarre comment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?