Main Menu
collapse

Recent Posts

Server Upgrade - This is the new server by THRILLHO
[Today at 05:52:28 PM]


Owens out Monday by TAMU, Knower of Ball
[Today at 03:23:08 PM]


Shaka Preseason Availability by Tyler COLEk
[Today at 03:14:12 PM]


Marquette Picked #3 in Big East Conference Preview by Jay Bee
[Today at 02:04:27 PM]


Get to know Ben Steele by Hidden User
[Today at 12:14:10 PM]


Deleted by TallTitan34
[Today at 09:31:48 AM]


2024-25 Big East TV Guide by Mr. Nielsen
[Today at 08:29:24 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Redskins name Banned?

Started by muwarrior69, August 09, 2014, 06:24:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pakuni

Quote from: mu03eng on June 21, 2017, 11:53:13 AM
Not to pick nits, but only one of those is a supreme court decision and that one was a decision around the state and an organization with a design. Not a private citizen choosing to select letters/numbers that created something offensive.

Well, what the Supreme Court says is law, so there really doesn't need to be more than one Supreme Court ruling, unless they see need to clarify on another case brought before them. Although the specifics of that case involve one state and one particular message, it applies to all.

Quote
Apples and oranges to the trademark decision around Washington's nickname.
Oh, I agree, but since you guys started talking about how the principle ought to be the same for license plates ....

mu03eng

Quote from: Pakuni on June 21, 2017, 12:04:01 PM
Well, what the Supreme Court says is law, so there really doesn't need to be more than one Supreme Court ruling, unless they see need to clarify on another case brought before them. Although the specifics of that case involve one state and one particular message, it applies to all.
Oh, I agree, but since you guys started talking about how the principle ought to be the same for license plates ....

Let me rephrase.....there is one supreme court ruling in the license plate area of concern but is not related to the original conceit....that if a person(not an organization or corporation) wanted to sue the state for violation of their 1st amendment protections because the state would not allow them their primary choice of customization.

So, while interesting, the articles you've provided do nothing to prove my original statement incorrect
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Pakuni

Quote from: mu03eng on June 21, 2017, 12:39:00 PM
Let me rephrase.....there is one supreme court ruling in the license plate area of concern but is not related to the original conceit....that if a person(not an organization or corporation) wanted to sue the state for violation of their 1st amendment protections because the state would not allow them their primary choice of customization.

So, while interesting, the articles you've provided do nothing to prove my original statement incorrect

I'm not terribly interested in a long debate, so I'll leave it at this: The legal principle stated by the court here - that a license plate is government speech, not protected private speech - would not change on the basis of who seeks a personalized plate. The court wouldn't rule that a license plate is government speech when a group wants something on it, but private speech when Joe Blow wants to personalize it.

mu03eng

Quote from: Pakuni on June 21, 2017, 01:53:34 PM
I'm not terribly interested in a long debate, so I'll leave it at this: The legal principle stated by the court here - that a license plate is government speech, not protected private speech - would not change on the basis of who seeks a personalized plate. The court wouldn't rule that a license plate is government speech when a group wants something on it, but private speech when Joe Blow wants to personalize it.

I'm not a legal scholar but I'd argue that if Citizen's United were overturned (or this fictional legal fight overrode that precedent) that your last statement is incorrect.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

MU82

Quote from: Babybluejeans on June 21, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
Just talked to a friend who's a very important person on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ginsburg, Kennedy or one of the other 7?

I mean, there are only 9 "important persons on the U.S. Supreme Court."
"It's not how white men fight." - Tucker Carlson

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington