This Cartoon Could Be Illegal, If Two Iowa Legislators Have Their Way:
Thanks to commenter Subpatre for passing it along, apropos these legislators' proposal to ban such speech, among other kinds of speech:
Related Posts (on one page):
- This Cartoon Could Be Illegal, If Two Iowa Legislators Have Their Way:
- Banning Cartoons of Candidates + Banning Disparagement of Candidates Without Opponents' Permission + Limiting Distribution of Information on Legislators' Votes:
That horse is already out of the barn.
Sk
I thought that passed muster.
Lonetown: Not really similar to McCain-Feingold. I have no love for McCain-Feingold, but at least it (as interpreted by the Court) had an exemption for media criticism, didn't cover criticism that didn't involve material amounts of money, allowed criticism by individuals, and more. It may well be that some campaign finance restriction maximalists (perhaps including McCain and Feingold themselves) would support broader bans, but it's clear given Buckley v. Valeo and McConnell v. FEC that noncorporate/nonunion independent expenditures criticizing or supporting candidates are indeed constitutionally protected.
“Any and all offensive . . . speech implicating considerations of race” — ILLEGAL, says another injunction.
“Where pure expression is involved, Title VII steers into the territory of the First Amendment. It is no use to deny or minimize this problem because, when Title VII is applied to sexual harassment claims founded solely on verbal insults, pictorial, or literary matter, the statute imposes content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech.” Circuit Judge Edith Jones, writing (albeit in dictum) for a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit, DeAngelis v. El Paso Mun. Police Officers’ Ass’n, 51 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 1995).
With little fanfare, “workplace harassment law” has become one of the government’s broadest — and most constitutionally troublesome — speech restrictions. It has been used to suppress, among other things,
· political statements,
· religious proselytizing,
· art, such as prints of Francisco de Goya paintings,
· sexually themed (perhaps not even misogynistic) jokes."
this is from your own link to your own article. Was it a joke question?
Maybe you are suggesting that the only comparable case would be an exact duplicate of the exact cartoon, in the exact same location, posted on the exact same day (but with different skin color, or ethnicity, or gender, or other protected class status). Any other example of speech-inhibiting laws, without this detailed identity of circumstances, doesn't represent similar freedom of speech problems. (Note that posting two cartoons at the exact same place at the exact same time is physically impossible-if this is your argument, why, its physically impossible to prove you wrong!).
Sk
I.e. Anything that Eugene posts on this blog can't be used for fodder in a hostile workplace suit against his employer, can it?
Also after reading the decision you cited, I don't think it supports your position. In fact, in that decision, the court REVERSED the judgement and thus found the material insufficient to be subject of a suit.
Also I doubt that merely hiring someone like David Duke would be sufficient to cause a hostile workplace for blacks, assuming Mr Duke behaved himself at work. An employer might not want to take that chance though.
On the other hand, this sort of law as proposed would make sweeping abridgments of free speech across forums. This is a very, very different matter and something I think that is entirely irreconcilable with the First Amendment.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.