Suppose Susan Block wanted that LIKE69 plate? Euphemisms are usually long and Latin-derived, and PHYSICAL INTIMACY HEALS won’t fit under that 6 or 8 letter limit*–the restriction isn’t viewpoint neutral.
C’mon, you knew I was going to use the tongue smiley.That would be a content neutral restriction, though, despite the outcome you’ve highlighted. The restriction would be on length, so any incidental burden on one’s ability to communicate whatever idea would be, well, incidental.
This is not the same as allowing one message because of the message and denying the counterpoint to that message.
Oh, sure. I was arguing with the example, not with the requirement for content neutrality.
Probably the SDMB - remember the hilarity when some of the “smartest folks in the room” attacked SDMB Member Huerta88, claiming, with no evidence whatsoever, that it was a secret racist username?
Gosh, my sister was Class of '88; I never knew her letter jacket secretly paid homage to…wait for it…HITLER! :rolleyes:
This would probably be okay.
Well, it is viewpoint neutral, but not content neutral.
The evidence was there in his posts.
For more info on this, google “Fourteen Words” and you’ll get a number of hits. It may not be known to the general public, but it is a widely known and used phrase in the white supremacist community.
Which has no bearing on my point. Obscenity and vulgarity restrictions are not viewpoint neutral. It is inherently impossible for them to be. In this case, the law of the land is flying in the face of basic reasoning.
They are viewpoint neutral when the prohibition is all inclusive and your consistent repeating of an incorrect point is not going to make it correct. The only basic reasoning which is floundering here is your own.
Now, it is correct to say obscenity and vulgarity are not content neutral restrictions.
You’re choosing to use “basic reasoning” to misinterpret what the law says, though. The law does not say that all speech restrictions must not have some subjective interpretation of anything, the law says that the speech restrictions can’t rely on which subjective interpretation the speaker chooses. You’re using a specific legal term when you say viewpoint neutral, except you’re ignoring what the term means in order to make your point. It doesn’t matter at all whether a definition of vulgarity is based on a “viewpoint” in some sense of the word. It has nothing to do with the requirement for neutrality with respect to the viewpoint of the speech.
Here, I’ll show you:
“Fuck a baby in the face” – obscene, because that’s how we define obscenity.
“Don’t fuck a baby in the face” – obscene, because that’s how we define obscenity.
Viewpoint neutrality!
Bullshit. Just plain old doubletalk. Restricting speech based on Puritan notions of obscenity is favoring one viewpoint over another. It doesn’t matter that the legal system has collectively decided to nod their heads and agree that ‘viewpoint’ doesn’t really mean ‘viewpoint’ and ‘neutral’ doesn’t really mean ‘neutral’ and ‘is’ doesn’t mean ‘is’ - it’s a nonsensical construction designed for the net effect of neutralizing the First Amendment right to free speech.
Fact : There can be no objective definition of obscenity.
Fact : Unpopular speech that the majority doesn’t like is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Fact : Puritanical morality in this country has neutered our right to free speech.
So a global ban on the phrase ‘PROLIFE’ on license plates (regardless of the car owner’s point of view) without an accompanying ban on ‘PROCHOIZ’ is kosher, because it really is a CONTENT restriction, not a VIEWPOINT restriction?
Bullshit.
God, man, if you aren’t going to read the posts, at least read a book about this stuff. Wikipedia, anything.
You don’t really understand what you’re arguing about. Given that it seems to make you so angry, I’d suggest you do yourself a favor and actually find out. I’d explain it myself, but, well. I tried that.
I think it’s the reverse - you don’t understand what I’m arguing about. Bricker uses the phrase ‘viewpoint neutral’ in his OP, and I object to it - not because he’s using it incorrectly in the legal sense - but because I find that usage - the legal definition usage - abhorrent to common sense and reason.
So it’s as if I found a dictionary that defined ‘cloud’ as ‘clown’, and I said ‘Hey, that’s wrong!’. And your counter argument is ‘No it’s not, see? It’s right here in the dictionary.’
I am scrutinizing and objecting to the legal definition of ‘viewpoint neutral’. You can’t use it to defend itself - that’s circular.
This problem has reared it’s head before, perhaps most memorably when we discussed the “rational basis test” for evaluating a statute’s constitutionality. There were one or two posters that went nearly apoplectic at how the word ‘rational’ was being used.
But all I can say that, like ‘viewpoint neutral,’ it’s a term of art in the legal world. I’m sorry it doesn’t comport with your understanding of how the phrase should be used in the rest of our daily existence, but there it is…
Curt they mentioned that in an episode of The West Wing… and also a lot of law enforcement types are familiar with that credo… the lighting bolt…
Interesting yet kind of dated piece by Dahlia Lithwick… I know of a Sgt (he’s an idiot…) who upon running upon a vehicle with a “Bushit” bumper sticker… pulled the driver over and cited her for some long ago forgotten local county ordinance. Of course it was beaten in court and she sued him and the PD… I contributed a penny to his legal defence.
I saw this article, and thought it belonged in this thread: Virginia driver denies license plate had coded racist message
The guy now claims that “14” and “88” stand not for white supremacy and Hitler, but Tony Stewart and Dale Earnhardt Jr. NASCAR jokes aside, his story is just crazy enough to be true (although as the article makes abundantly clear, the guy is still a grade-A dick).
Well, the legal world has its head up it ass about a whole lot of things. I’ll continue to point them out until they’re fixed. You’re welcome.