Who is online?
In total there are 17 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 17 Guests


[ View the whole list ]

Most users ever online was 111 on Thu 12 Dec 2013, 2:28 am
Latest topics
» Meditation Chip Brogden
Yesterday at 11:36 pm by Admin

» +Dev+ Michael D. Inman
Yesterday at 11:33 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 11:22 pm by Admin

» Daily Disciples
Yesterday at 11:11 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 11:10 pm by Admin

»  HONEST REPORTING Defending Israel from Media Bias plz read REGULAR UPDATES
Yesterday at 10:31 pm by Admin

» If Hillary Goes Down So Will Obama
Yesterday at 8:15 pm by Admin

» Police Seize Nuclear Substance in Turkish Capital, Detain Four
Yesterday at 3:08 pm by Admin

» The UN is trying to bury the truth but Jerusalem refuses to be silent
Yesterday at 2:53 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 2:38 pm by Admin

Yesterday at 12:31 am by Admin

Sun 18 Mar 2018, 11:20 pm by Admin

Sun 18 Mar 2018, 12:54 am by Admin

» George Soros
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 11:33 pm by Admin

Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:40 pm by Admin

» Bayo Afolaranmi (Pastor).
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:36 pm by Admin

» NUGGET Today's Devotional
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:34 pm by Admin

Sat 17 Mar 2018, 10:13 pm by Admin

Sat 17 Mar 2018, 9:11 pm by Admin

» US blames Russia for attacks on power grid
Sat 17 Mar 2018, 8:37 pm by Admin


The U.S. Supreme Court, Speech Regulation, and Islam

Go down

The U.S. Supreme Court, Speech Regulation, and Islam

Post  Admin on Thu 25 Jun 2015, 7:36 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court, Speech Regulation, and Islam
by Johanna Markind  •  Jun 23, 2015 at 9:27 am
Cross-posted from The Legal Project
Last week, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases – Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Reed v. Town of Gilbert – dealing with free speech, which have the potential to impact the right to discuss Islam.

The Walker decision concerned Texas' refusal to issue a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag. State law allows non-profit organizations to request a special design, and allows the state to reject the request for several reasons, including that "the design might be offensive to any member of the public." Justice Breyer's majority opinion held that the specialty plates issued by Texas should be considered speech of Texas, and that as government speech, its decision to say or refrain from saying something (in this case, to issue a Confederate battle-flag plate) was not covered by the First Amendment. Justice Alito's dissent concluded that Texas' action in rejecting the license plate constituted improper viewpoint discrimination. He warned, "The Court's decision passes off private speech as government speech and, in doing so, establishes a precedent that threatens private speech that government finds displeasing."
Both rulings have the potential to impact the right to discuss Islam in the United States.
Reed concerned a challenge to a sign ordinance that regulated outdoor signs based on the type of speech they conveyed. Ideological, political, and directional signs were among the category types. Rejecting the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the law could stand because the government intended no viewpoint discrimination, Justice Thomas (who somewhat atypically joined the "liberal" justices in the Walker majority opinion) wrote for the majority that "Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship presented by a facially content-based statute, as future government officials may one day wield such statutes to suppress disfavored speech."

The decision in Reed was unanimous, but the Court was somewhat fractured as to its rationale. There were four separate opinions: Justice Thomas' majority opinion, and concurrences by Justices Breyer (who wrote the Walker majority opinion), Alito (who wrote the Walker dissenting opinion), and Kagan.

It will be interesting to see whether the opinions, especially Reed, have any impact on recent, well-publicized disputes about whether posters critical of Islam may be placed on municipal buses. Among the cases Justice Thomas cited in his majority opinion is Matthews v. Needham, in which the First Circuit held that a law banning political signs but not commercial signs was content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. In a concurring opinion, Justice Breyer opined, "I have great concern that many justifiable instances of 'content-based' regulation are noncommercial."
Justice Kagan's separate concurrence expressed concern that many "reasonable" signage ordinances drawing subject matter distinctions were placed in jeopardy by the majority opinion's sweeping language. Justice Alito's concurrence, which like Justice Kagan's concurrence did not touch upon the classification of commercial versus non-commercial speech, included this cautionary note:
Limiting speech based on its 'topic' or 'subject' favors those who do not want to disturb the status quo. Such regulations may interfere with democratic self-government and the search for truth.
On the other hand, the buses on which posters are displayed are typically government property to some degree. Will municipalities or their transit services claim that under Walker, the speech is that of the government, which can then regulate its content without running afoul of the First Amendment?
Johanna Markind is associate counselor at the Middle East Forum

Posts : 50703
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 72
Location : Wales UK

View user profile http://worldwidechristians.6forum.info

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum