«
»

the First Amendment does not imply a ‘right to party’ dissociated from expression” (apparently referring to expression on political, religious, moral, or otherwise significant matters, beyond just partying for social reasons). URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, 2010 WL 222587 (D.R.I. 2010).

Categories: Uncategorized    

    21 Comments

    1. yankee says:

      Civil disobedience now!

      January 25, 2010, 5:27 pm

    2. troll_dc2 says:

      Is the First Amendment really limited to expressions relating to political, religious, moral, or otherwise significant matters? If so, we’re doomed.

      January 25, 2010, 5:30 pm

    3. AJK says:

      I’d have to think the Beastie Boys would agree — otherwise, why would you have to fight for your right (to party)?

      January 25, 2010, 5:39 pm

    4. Anderson says:

      Yes, Troll, but on this scale, Avatar is “significant.” So we’re grading on the curve here.

      January 25, 2010, 5:47 pm

    5. Careless says:

      Unfortunately, “appeal” does not rhyme with “right”

      January 25, 2010, 7:17 pm

    6. DNJ says:

      What is the authority for saying that the First Amendment does not protest all speech (except for narrow categories like true threats & knowing falsehoods), but merely speech on “significant” matters? There may well be such authority, but I am wondering what it is.

      January 25, 2010, 7:29 pm

    7. Fub says:

      troll_dc2: Is the First Amendment really limited to expressions relating to political, religious, moral, or otherwise significant matters? If so, we’re doomed.

      And not even to religious and moral matters, unless you can convince some humorless official that they really are, cf: BONG HiTS 4 JESUS (PDF), from which:

      The superintendent continued:
      “The common-sense understanding of the phrase ‘bong hits’ is that it is a reference to a means of smoking marijuana. Given [Frederick’s] inability or unwillingness to express any other credible meaning for the phrase, I can only agree with the principal and countless others who saw the banner as advocating the use of illegal drugs. [Frederick’s] speech was not political. He was not advocating the legalization of marijuana or promoting a religious belief. He was displaying a fairly silly message promoting illegal drug usage in the midst of a school activity, for the benefit of television cameras covering the Torch Relay. [Frederick’s] speech was potentially disruptive to the event and clearly disruptive of and inconsistent with the school’s educational mission to educate students about the dangers of illegal drugs and to discourage their use.”

      January 25, 2010, 8:44 pm

    8. arbitraryaardvark says:

      DNJ: The Morse case, “bong hits for jesus” is on point. In Morse, the plaintiff settled for $50,000 on remand, on a state constitutional claim. I don’t know if there’s a state constitutional claim in the naragansett case. Link anyone? Ah,
      http://www.riaclu.org/CourtCases /Case/URIStudentSenateVNarragansett.html. Ok, there are state constitutional claims, although the link to the complaint goes to the wrong case.

      January 25, 2010, 8:52 pm

    9. Eagle's Nest says:

      Imma set it straight, this watergate!

      January 25, 2010, 10:49 pm

    10. SuperSkeptic says:

      As long as there are exceptions to the First, Courts will corral speakers into them.

      Come to think of it, that’s exactly the reverse of what Stevens advocated in Citizens United: ‘We already have a sub-category of protected corporate speech under our previous precedent, which allows Congress to regulate other speech, so the Court should have used an as-applied challenge to corral Citizens United into it.’ Contrary to what the judges normally do, he wanted to corral them – and only them – into a protected group of speakers (in order to avoid striking down an unconstitutional statute, of course).

      From the dissent (pg. 15-16):

      “…Citizens United looks so much like the MCFL organizations we have exempted from regulation … the Court could have easily limited the breadth of its constitutional holding…” (emphasis added).

      And it’s true, the Court could have – if it wanted to allow some speech to be infringed and others not.

      January 25, 2010, 11:01 pm

    11. C.T. says:

      AJK: I’d have to think the Beastie Boys would agree — otherwise, why would you have to fight for your right (to party)?

      lol. damn straight.

      January 25, 2010, 11:59 pm

    12. Simon Jester says:

      Why doesn’t the right to party fall under the freedom of assembly?

      Or… is it found in our favorite “inkblot” instead?

      ;->

      January 26, 2010, 1:02 pm

    13. You Gotta Fight For Your Right « The View From LL2 says:

      [...] at the Supreme Court You Gotta Fight For Your Right January 26, 2010 Over at Volokh Conspiracy (again), Eugene Volokh notes that a recent District of Rhode Island opinion declaring that there is [...]

      January 26, 2010, 2:43 pm

    14. disconnect says:

      Well, if it’s gonna be that kind of party…

      January 26, 2010, 2:58 pm

    15. Dan Are says:

      What about the 9th?

      January 26, 2010, 3:42 pm

    16. Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “While the Beastie Boys Might Disagree, -- Topsy.com says:

      [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andy Sellars, Trey Barrineau. Trey Barrineau said: Apparently, you really DO have to fight for your right to party: http://bit.ly/8xX66c [...]

      January 26, 2010, 5:32 pm

    17. NR says:

      This is a major setback to the cause of liberty. The Founding Dudes would be appalled.

      January 26, 2010, 6:06 pm

    18. NR says:

      the First Amendment does not imply a ‘right to party’ dissociated from expression

      Doesn’t the court realize that getting wasted with your college friends is an expressive activity? It expresses one’s awesomeness

      January 26, 2010, 6:11 pm

    19. readery says:

      Intellectual pursuits are pretty lame, man. What dude does them any more? Certainly no one in college. The District Court of Rhode Island seems totally out of touch with the living constitution. The Constitution protects the important stuff, not the lame stuff.

      What’s the point of having an abortion if there’s no right to party?

      January 26, 2010, 10:40 pm

    20. Doc Merlin says:

      BALONEY! “right to party” is clearly part of the first amendment right to assemble. Do people even read the constitution anymore.

      Why hasn’t anyone brought up the freedom of assembly?

      January 27, 2010, 12:51 am

    21. NR says:

      Doc Merlin,

      The Court addressed the freedom of assembly argument as follows:

      Can Plaintiffs identify any protected conduct that the Ordinance might chill? The Court has already determined that substantive due process privacy and associational rights are not at issue. What about free speech, expression, and assembly? Plaintiffs do not assert that any “gatherings” dispersed pursuant to the Ordinance were political demonstrations, see Grayned, 408 U.S. at 105, meetings of organizations that “seek[ ] to transmit … a system of values” to their members, see Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 650 (2000), or concerts, see Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790 (1989) (explaining that playing music enjoys First Amendment protection). Instead, Plaintiffs proclaim that “[s]tudents should have the right to congregate and socialize whether for political or social reasons.” (Pls.’ Resp. Mem. 16.) In fact, nothing in the record suggests that the gatherings serve anything other than “social purposes,” an objective that falls flat. Anyone who has college-aged children knows that “hanging out” is an important, even vital social experience. But just as the Constitution does not “recognize[ ] a generalized right of ‘social association’ “ of the type that includes “chance encounters in dance halls,” City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 25 (1989), it does not protect college house parties, no matter how many problems of the world may be solved at them. Under Stanglin, Plaintiffs cannot claim constitutional protection for get-togethers that do not serve political or expressive ends.FN4

      FN4. In other words, while the Beastie Boys might disagree, the First Amendment does not imply a “right to party” dissociated from expression.

      URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett 2010 WL 222587, 6 (D.R.I.) (D.R.I.,2010)

      January 27, 2010, 10:51 am