Blackwater 53393 Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Right and proper decision!! Link to comment
Subdeacon Joe Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Good decision. It still allows laws targeting support for specific candidates or specific ballot measures, but allows general ideas to be expressed. I think the deciding factor was that the MN law allowed some but not all "political speech." Quote The State emphasizes that the ban covers only apparel promoting groups whose political positions are sufficiently “well-known.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 37. But that requirement, if anything, only increases the potential for erratic application. Well known by whom? The State tells us the lodestar is the “typical observer” of the item. Brief for Respondents 21. But that measure may turn in significant part on the background knowledge and media consumption of the particular election judge applying it. The State’s “electoral choices” standard, considered together with the nonexclusive examples in the Election Day Policy, poses riddles that even the State’s top lawyers struggle to solve. A shirt declaring “All Lives Matter,” we are told, could be “perceived” as political. Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. How about a shirt bearing the name of the National Rifle Association? Definitely out. Id., at 39–40. That said, a shirt displaying a rainbow flag could be worn “unless there was an issue on the ballot” that “related somehow . . . to gay rights.” Id., at 38 (emphasis added). A shirt simply displaying the text of the Second Amendment? Prohibited. Id., at 40. But a shirt with the text of the First Amendment? “It would be allowed.” Ibid. The text here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1435_2co3.pdf Link to comment
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 Amazing, isn't it, that there could even be a dissenting opinion. But then, consider who wrote it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.