Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) You are correct in the first sentence( with you being a good example of apparently not understanding the US Constitution regarding both the freedoms provided as well as the limitations of free speech ). Your second sentence is inaccurate. DCI can NOT create " any rule they wanted limiting any speech they wanted within the realm of DCI". For example, the US Supreme Court has broadened and included the rights of " Free Speech " to be campaign ccontributions by free individuals to associations, imcluding DCI and political candidates for example. It is not unfettered and there are limitations, but it demonstrates the elasticity of how the courts have extended the rights of individuals to free speech and has put the burden on others, ie DCI to demonstrate why any particular measure they adopt is not in some way restrictive of another's fundamental exercise of their 1st Amendment Rights. For example DCI could not enact a law that said that fans at a DCI show may not boo any Corps at a show or they will be evicted. While booing is in bad taste, and DCI may want to eliminate it, one does not give up their 1st Amendment rights with their entry into a DCI show no matter what DCI might enact. It would be struck down immediately, and DCI could be subjected to a lawsuit for impinging upon the freedom of speech rights and removing a fan for merely booing a Corps. DCI would be on solid ground by removing an unruly fan however, as such fan's behavior could be seen by the courts as intrusive on other fans right to public safety. But no, DCI is not given cart blanche to institute whatever they want that restricts one's 1st Amendment Rights, Stu. As a matter of fact, they must be careful that any initiatives they enact are not in violation of one's Freedom of Speech, or any other freedoms we as individuals enjoy under the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has routinely ruled over the years that the burden is on the entity that wants to restrict one's freedom of speech and must show compelling cause for doing so, Stu. You want to discuss the nuisances, fine. The Supreme court just ruled 9-0 that the FCC (Federal) cannot curtail Free Speech on the air waves; however in the same ruling they also stated that the Broadcast Companies 'can' self-regulate speech such as nudity or foul language because while the Federal cannot create the rule/law the companies themselves can. Moreover, while the Federal Government cannot curtail any music or show concepts in public access businesses, the State, County, City (unless their constitutions state differently), and the Business itself can curtail any music or any show concepts they so desire. (Example: a club can say to bands we play rock music here not country music). So, within the realm of DCI, a fan yelling Yea or Boo at a competitive event is within context of the venue and probaly would not be an issue to curtail; however, a drum corps show with nude pole dancing guard girls, a leather clad drumline with their behinds exposed, and a hornline with instruments being covered to look like phallic symbols, DCI could certainly curtail that speech, if they so chose, within the venue of DCI competition and rightly so under the law. Edited September 29, 2012 by Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) You want to discuss the nuisances, fine. The Supreme court just ruled 9-0 that the FCC (Federal) cannot curtail Free Speech on the air waves; however in the same ruling they also stated that the Broadcast Companies 'can' self-regulate speech such as nudity or foul language because while the Federal cannot create the rule/law the companies themselves can. Moreover, while the Federal Government cannot curtail any music or show concepts in public access businesses, the State, County, City (unless their constitutions state differently), and the Business itself can curtail any music or any show concepts they so desire. (Example: a club can say to bands we play rock music here not country music). So, within the realm of DCI, a fan yelling Yea or Boo at a competitive event is within context of the venue and probaly would not be an issue to curtail; however, a drum corps show with nude pole dancing guard girls, a leather clad drumline with their behinds exposed, and a hornline with instruments being covered to look like phallic symbols, DCI could certainly curtail that speech, if they so chose, within the venue of DCI competition and rightly so under the law. Perhaps you did not understand my reply to your comment above where you stated that DCI could ( quote )" create if they so desired ANY RULE that they wanted limiting ANY type of speech they wanted. " I see no point in regugitating once again for you that DCI has no such unfettered rights at all to do as you claim here in this quote. There waa no need to take the discussion into the realm of the ability of DCI to curb "Corps shows with nude pole dancing", etc and so forth, as noone here believes that this will ever become an issue at DCI, and of course DCI would be within their pervue to prohibit such Corps from taking the field, as to do so would subject them to probable local community criminal and civil code violations and so forth, as the Corps participated under the DCI umbrella organization, and both that Corps and DCI would be subject to probable arrest and prosecution for conducting such a show near a school, and not in a comunity approved " adult entertainment zone ". But lets go to extremes here with examples that we'll never see occur and that are irrelevent to your claim on what DCI can do by " limiting ANY type of free speech if they wanted ". Edited September 29, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 here waa no need to take the discussion into the realm of the ability of DCI to curb "Corps shows with nude pole dancing, etc and so forth, as noone here believes that this will ever become an issue at DCI, and of course DCI would be within their pervue to prohibit such Corps from taking the field, as to do so would subject them to probable local community criminal and civil code violations and so forth, as the Corps participated under their umbrella organization. Yes there is, was, a need to discuss this in the context of free speech because DCI, if they so desired, could prevent a corps from using a Nazi flag in a show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Yes there is, was, a need to discuss this in the context of free speech because DCI, if they so desired, could prevent a corps from using a Nazi flag in a show. No kidding. But what does this have to do with your claim above ( that I responded too ) that DCI can enact any rule they want that limits free speech ? and that the Constitution allows an organization like DCI to " enact any rule they want that limits ANY TYPE of free speech they wanted" ?DCI has no such unfettered rights as you claim under the Constitution, Stu. Thats the central point you appear to not fully grasp. Edited September 29, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 No kidding. But what does this have to do with your claim above ( that I responded too ) that DCI can enact any rule they want that limits free speech ? and that the Constitution allows an organization like DCI to " enact any rule they want that limits ANY TYPE of free speech they wanted" ?DCI has no such unfettered rights as you claim under the Constitution, Stu. Thats the central point you appear to not fully grasp. I don't follow you here. Can you point out the language in the Constitution that says a private entity cannot regulate expression within its own realm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) I don't follow you here. Can you point out the language in the Constitution that says a private entity cannot regulate expression within its own realm? Sure. Its in the Separation of Powers doctrine, where the enumerated powers of the Constitution provide that all rights, powers and privleges not granted specifically under the Constitution rests with its people, not to any organization, or Governmental agency. For example, when one attends a DCI show, presumably on school grounds, a sudent ( or adult ) could exercise their freedom of speech rights by booing the Corps performance. Bad manners and rude as it may be. No rule could be enacted by DCI that would call for the eviction of any student or adult for booing a Corps. That would be but one small example of an overreach by DCI and prohibited under our Constitution. There are many cite cases for this, but the one that might be germane would be Tinker vs. Des Moines Supreme Court decision in 1969 that prohibited the school from enacting any rule it wanted in its school or on its school grounds. The Supremes stated that no person automatically loses their Freedom of Speech protections and guarantees " at the school house gate ". Similarly, any student or adult that enters a DCI show could not be evicted for booing a Corps, even if DCI " enacted any rule they wanted to restict freedom of speech " with such a rule. DCI does not have unfettered rights to enact rules that limits ones freedom of speech. My guess, DCI is aware of this as well and checks all rules it is thinking of enacting to be certain that it passes Constitutional legal muster and I'm sure they have lawyers that advise DCI that it can't enact wily nily anything it wants in restricting freedom of speech in its realm which is Stu's misguided apparent belief. Edited September 29, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Sure. Its in the Separation of Powers doctrine, where the enumerated powers of the Constitution provide that all rights, powers and privleges not granted specifically under the Constitution rests with its people, not to any organization, or Governmental agency. For example, when one attends a DCI show, presumably on school grounds, a sudent ( or adult ) could exercise their freedom of speech rights by booing the Corps performance. Bad manners and rude as it may be. No rule could be enacted by DCI that would call for the eviction of any student or adult for booing a Corps. That would be but one small example of an overreach by DCI and prohibited under our Constitution. There are many cite cases for this, but the one that might be germane would be Tinker vs. Des Moines Supreme Court decision in 1969 that prohibited the school from enacting any rule it wanted in its school or on its school grounds. The Supremes stated that no person automatically loses their Freedom of Speech protections and guarantees " at the school house gate ". Similarly, any student or adult that enters a DCI show could not be evicted for booing a Corps, even if DCI " enacted any rule they wanted to restict freedom of speech " with such a rule. DCI does not have unfettered rights to enact rules that limits ones freedom of speech. My guess, DCI is aware of this as well and checks all rules it is thinking of enacting to be certain that it passes Constitutional legal muster and I'm sure they have lawyers that advise DCI that it can't enact wily nily anything it wants in restricting freedom of speech in its realm which is Stu's misguided apparent belief. The school in question within the 1969 case you cite is a direct extension of the government; so the 1969 decision would not, or at least should not, apply to a non-governmental entity such as DCI. Non governmental entities, even Non-Profits, can curtail speech within their own framework. A non-profit, for example, can boot my band off stage if I begin to espouse guttural language, Nazi Flags, and suggestive acts on stage. Edited September 29, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 I don't follow you here. Can you point out the language in the Constitution that says a private entity cannot regulate expression within its own realm? Because to many the words in the Constitution do not mean what they actually say, but just mean what the current interpretation is according to current philosophical bents of the culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Sure. Its in the Separation of Powers doctrine, where the enumerated powers of the Constitution provide that all rights, powers and privleges not granted specifically under the Constitution rests with its people, not to any organization, or Governmental agency. Can you explain where you got the "not to any organization" langauge? Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Wouldn't a private organization not affiliated with the government be part of "the people" and thus free to limit the speech of those who choose privately and voluntarily to be its members? Do people stop being people when they organize themselves? If a private organization can't limit the speech of its own members, does that mean a newspaper can't edit the articles in its own newspaper? If a private organization can't limit the speech of those it does business with, does that mean that millions of Non-Disclosure Agreements are null and void? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan9 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 A guy leaves for a few days.... and the ACLU highjacks DCP! :) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts