| Subject: Re: DO YOU KNOW DAN BREWINGTON ON A PERSONAL LEVEL? |
Author:
courageous
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:44:07 10/13/11 Thu
In reply to:
El Krauft
's message, "DO YOU KNOW DAN BREWINGTON ON A PERSONAL LEVEL?" on 18:42:19 10/12/11 Wed
CAN YOU READ THIS:
"[A]s a general matter, . . . government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573, 122 S.Ct. 1700, 152 L.Ed.2d 771 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. "'From 1791 to the present, ' . . . the First Amendment has 'permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, ' and has never 'include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.'" United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. ------, ------, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 ------, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382-383, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-449, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam), and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942)—represent "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem, " id., at 571-572, 62 S.Ct. 766.
I ASSUME YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT AS THE PROSECUTOR AND DEARBORN COUNTY OFFICIALS DO NOT.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 