Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 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? According to the US Constitution First Amendment the 'Federal Government', and just the 'Federal Government', cannot create a law which limits speech; also according the the US Constitution Tenth Amendment what is not covered in the US Constitution is therefore left up to the individual States; so, the original intent of the Constitutional framers is that while the Federal Government can not regulate speech at all a State could regulate speech within its own boarders. However, this view of Constitutional original intent has been skewed in modern times by those who believe that changing mores and cultural views should actually negate the original intent and ever changing interpretations should morph the meaning of the Constitution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) 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. Look, Stu... I made no comment re the right of DCI to limit things.. and you gave examples where we all agree that DCI would be in their rights to restrict behaviors they believe pertain to CORPS.... and the things found within the Corps show. This of course has nothing at all to do with your comment above that DCI can enact ANY rule they wanted and restrict " ANY... repeat ANY... freedom of speech they wanted ". No they can't. And twice I gave you a specific example where they would NOT be allowed to restrict one's freedom of speech. I could provide you dozens of other examples where DCI would be prohibited from enacting rules that the Courts would rule unconstitutional under the 1st amendment and an infringement of one's Freedom of Speech. So I don't know what else to tell you, Stu, as your belief that DCI has an unfettered right that would allow them to restrict one's freedom of speech in ANY and all circumstances is simply flat out inaccurate. 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 Look, Stu... I made no comment re the right of DCI to limit things.. and you gave examples where we all agree that DCI would be in their rights to restrict behaviors they believe pertain to CORPS.... and the things found within the Corps show. This of course has nothing at all to do with your comment above that DCI can enact ANY rule they wanted and restrict " ANY... repeat ANY... freedom of speech they wanted ". No they can't. And twice I gave you a specific example where they would NOT be allowed to restrict one's freedom of speech. I could provide you dozens of other examples where DCI would be prohibited from enacting rules that the Courts would rule unconstitutional under the 1st amendment and an infringement of one's Freedom of Speech. So I don't know what else to tell you, Stu, as your belief that DCI has an unfettered right that would allow them to restrict one's freedom of speech in ANY and all circumstances is simply flat out inaccurate. He said within the realm of DCI. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult or go off on one of those conversations I normally can't stand reading on DCP, but this is not a personal argument. It is the frickin constitution we are talking about, something that affects us all. As such it is concerning to hear someone say something so inconsistent with what I had previously believed to be years of correct understanding, namely, as Stu I believe is saying, that the first amendment limits the power of the federal government to restrict speech and imposes no such limitation on private organizations acting independently of the government. I'm not even saying you are wrong. I am saying that your assertions are inconsistent with my own personal understanding as well as, I believe, many others who have studied the constitution and despite having made them repeatedly, you have yet to provide any actual evidence as far I have seen. You speak of examples but I don't recall seeing anywhere where you gave an example of the constitution preventing a private organization from limiting speech within its own organization. If I missed something, I apologize, but I only remember an inapplicable example related to government action and unsupported contentions related to the actions of DCI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Stu I believe is saying, that the first amendment limits the power of the federal government to restrict speech and imposes no such limitation on private organizations acting independently of the government. Reread what Stu said above and my initial reply. I responded to what he said, and pointed out where he was clearly inaccurate. Do not shift the comment of his that I responded to over to something else where we may actually, God forbid, may be in agreement. Stu said that DCI can enact " ANY RULE they wanted limiting ANY type of free speech they wanted ". It was THIS, and ONLY this comment that I responded to above. Now, so we are clear here, surely you do not agree with Stu's comment that DCI can "enact any rule they want that limits ALL freedom of speech ".... or do you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sideways Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 I'd have a better response for this, perhaps...but I have no idea what you mean. Can you enlighten me, please? Thank you. Song in The Producers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 29, 2012 Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) skevinp: I, and suspect you, fall on the side which believes the Constitution is a rock; an immovable document of bedrock which must be viewed to have specific unchanging original meaning ascribed to the words it contains; and that the rock can only be changed by specific wording within subsequent amendments (see belief structure of Scalia). However, modern thought is that it is more of a malleable 'living and breathing' entity in which the current cultural mores and values can actually morph the judicial interpretation over time and therefore mold it like clay to fit changing philosophical thought (ie see the belief structure of Ginsburg). So, to us, the meaning of the First Amendment solely applies to the Federal Congress and no other entity (which, by the way, is what it actually says); however to those within modern thought the First Amendment is expanded to cover anything outside of the Federal Congress. This 'living and breathing' view of malleable morphing of meaning of words is also how we get absurd statements from the modern legalese minded like, "It depends on what the word 'is' is." 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 (edited) Reread what Stu said above and my initial reply. I responded to what he said, and pointed out where he was clearly inaccurate. Do not shift the comment of his that I responded to over to something else where we may actually, God forbid, may be in agreement. Stu said that DCI can enact " ANY RULE they wanted limiting ANY type of free speech they wanted ". It was THIS, and ONLY this comment that I responded to above. Now, so we are clear here, surely you do not agree with Stu's comment that DCI can "enact any rule they want that limits ALL freedom of speech ".... or do you ? I whole heartily contend that the First Amendment of the United States, which states that no law can be created to limit the freedom of speech, does not apply to any entity outside of Federal Congress. Why? Because that is what it flat states without any equivocation, "Congress" shall pass no law... This wording is extremely specific, and it only directs that wording to Federal Congress, irrespective of how the judiciary has tried to spin it and morph the interpretation over time. I therefore truly contend that the authors of this founding document would be fine if the entity of "DCI" wanted to curtail any speech it wanted under its own venue and its own sphere of control. Why? Because the Constitutional Founders believed that Federal Government should stay as far away as possible from dictating what non-governmental entities could or could not do, again, under their own sphere of control. Bold added to emphasize that skevinp is reading me correctly. Edited September 29, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Reread what Stu said above and my initial reply. I responded to what he said, and pointed out where he was clearly inaccurate. Do not shift the comment of his that I responded to over to something else where we may actually, God forbid, may be in agreement. Stu said that DCI can enact " ANY RULE they wanted limiting ANY type of free speech they wanted ". It was THIS, and ONLY this comment that I responded to above. Now, so we are clear here, surely you do not agree with Stu's comment that DCI can "enact any rule they want that limits ALL freedom of speech ".... or do you ? I did reread it. With emphasis added, he said: This amendment applies just to Federal Congress and not to any other entity; it does not even apply to State Governments (which is addressed in the Tenth Amendment). Therefore, the Board of DCI could create, if they so desired, any rule they wanted limiting any type of speech they wanted within the realm of DCI . As for your version of what he said, I don't know how to respond to it because I don't even know what it would mean. I don't think anyone was suggesting DCI has the authority to control the speech of total strangers who have not agreed to give it such authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) I don't think anyone was suggesting DCI has the authority to control the speech of total strangers who have not agreed to give it such authority. Its not conjecture. It is what he said.I responded to that comment, and only that comment. It was an inaccurate statement on the US Constitution and his belief ( quote ) " DCI can enact ANY rule it wanted limiting ANY type of freedom of speech it wanted ". I will state it once more for hoped for clarity for both Stu and you: DCI has no such unfettered right as was stated "to enact ANY rule limiting ANY type of of freedom of speech it wants". If you believe, for the example I used, that DCI could enact a rule that anyone attending its show may not boo a Corps in performance, ( limiting one's freedom of speech under the 1st amendment), and if they do boo, they will be evicted, and this rule both he and you believe is legal under the US Constitution, then you are mistaken, and you do not understand the US Constitution quite as well as you believe that you do. DCI would be prohibited in exercising such attempts at stifling both legitimate exercise of dissent as well as freedom of speech with such a rule. No lawyer worth his salt representing the DCI Board of Directors and Membership would allow that proposed rule to go into effect as they'd know right away its a non starter and would be successfully challenged by anyone that felt this DCI rule was an infringement upon their 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech protected under the US Constitution. Edited September 30, 2012 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Its not conjecture. It is what he said.I responded to that comment, and only that comment. It was an inaccurate statement on the US Constitution and his belief ( quote ) " DCI can enact ANY rule it wanted limiting ANY type of freedom of speech it wanted ". I will state it once more for hoped for clarity for both Stu and you: DCI has no such unfettered right as was stated "to enact ANY rule limiting ANY type of of freedom of speech it wants". If you believe, for the example I used, that DCI could enact a rule that anyone attending its show may not boo a Corps in performance, ( limiting one's freedom of speech under the 1st amendment), and if they do boo, they will be evicted, and this rule both he and you is Constitutional, then you are mistaken, and you do not understand the US Constitution quite as well as you believe that you do. DCI would be prohibited in exercising such attempts at stifling both diseent as well as free speech with such a rule. No lawyer worth his salt representing DCI would allow that proposed rule to go into effect as they'd know right away its a non starter and would be successfully challenged by anyone that felt this DCI rule was an infringement on their 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech protected under the US Constitution. Brasso: Do not cite what lawyers have 'interpreted' over the years; forget 'precedent of Case law'; please, for the record, cite the US Constitution where it states that other entities outside of Federal Congress cannot restrict speech within their own sphere or realm of control? The Tenth Amendment actually even acknowledges the right of the States to create such laws, applicable only within their own State, if the State so desires! Edited September 30, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts