RE: Assault On Free Speech
August 2, 2012 at 1:36 pm
(This post was last modified: August 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm by Jaysyn.)
Here is exactly how Boston, Chicago, etc could ban Chik-fil-a legally if they really wanted to go that route.
These "secondary adverse affects" rulings have been upheld several times by the SCOTUS.
I can see it now.
The law was not, the Court said, aimed a suppressing the political message of Chik-fil-a but rather was an attempt, as the city declared, to prevent the sort of "atmosphere conducive to bigotry, LGBT harassment, obesity, poor public health, increased traffic and other deleterious effects."
These "secondary adverse affects" rulings have been upheld several times by the SCOTUS.
Quote:The law was not, the (US Supreme) Court said, aimed a suppressing the erotic message of dancers but rather was an attempt, as the city declared, to prevent the sort of "atmosphere conducive to violence, sexual harassment, public intoxication, prostitution, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and other deleterious effects."
I can see it now.
The law was not, the Court said, aimed a suppressing the political message of Chik-fil-a but rather was an attempt, as the city declared, to prevent the sort of "atmosphere conducive to bigotry, LGBT harassment, obesity, poor public health, increased traffic and other deleterious effects."
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
