Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New York State attacks the First Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    You've made that assertion twice now. Care to back that up with an actual argument?
    You made that assertion in the title of your thread. And no where in any of the sources does it mention the 1st amendment.

    You really think a barge company has the 1A right to run a business in the waters off NYC? What speech is the barge company saying and why would that speech be protected by the 1A?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
      You made that assertion in the title of your thread. And no where in any of the sources does it mention the 1st amendment.

      You really think a barge company has the 1A right to run a business in the waters off NYC?
      I'm arguing it as a First Amendment case -- as I'm sure the respondents will when they fight this crap in court. The City and the State have been trying to do this for years. Back in the '90s Giuliani claimed that the floating billboards distracted drivers -- while he ignored the various forms of advertising that bombard the City's drivers daily. So if the pubic interest crutch is knocked out from under it, then this new law is nothing more than a speech restriction -- which plants it under the First Amendment, plain and simple.
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

        I'm arguing it as a First Amendment case -- as I'm sure the respondents will when they fight this crap in court. The City and the State have been trying to do this for years. Back in the '90s Giuliani claimed that the floating billboards distracted drivers -- while he ignored the various forms of advertising that bombard the City's drivers daily. So if the pubic interest crutch is knocked out from under it, then this new law is nothing more than a speech restriction -- which plants it under the First Amendment, plain and simple.


        With certainty it is a 1st Amendment case.
        The only issue is whether it commercial speech, which is still protected, and if it is, whether the restrictions are reasonable under the test I identified above.


        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



          With certainty it is a 1st Amendment case.
          The only issue is whether it commercial speech, which is still protected, and if it is, whether the restrictions are reasonable under the test I identified above.

          They're not reasonable -- since the City of New York mandates that every building in Times Square be fronted with large, illuminated billboards. If the barges are distracting to drivers, then certainly the billboards in Times Sq are equally so -- so there goes the public interest argument.

          Then again, this is New York -- where, after terms limits were enacted by TWO referenda, the Federal District Court ruled that Mike Bloomberg's third mayoral term did not violate NYC law.

          Think I'd cut it as a lawyer? I'm sure that I can rack up those "billable hours" with the best of 'em.*

          *I actually knew a lawyer who defined a good lawyer as one who racks up billable hours. Of this I sh*t you not.
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

            They're not reasonable -- since the City of New York mandates that every building in Times Square be fronted with large, illuminated billboards. If the barges are distracting to drivers, then certainly the billboards in Times Sq are equally so -- so there goes the public interest argument.

            Then again, this is New York -- where, after terms limits were enacted by TWO referenda, the Federal District Court ruled that Mike Bloomberg's third mayoral term did not violate NYC law.

            Think I'd cut it as a lawyer? I'm sure that I can rack up those "billable hours" with the best of 'em.*

            *I actually knew a lawyer who defined a good lawyer as one who racks up billable hours. Of this I sh*t you not.


            Your friend spoke truly.
            Years ago one of my partners and I became aware that an attorney on our team might be "padding" her hours. (Please note I'm giving myself wiggle room)
            Her "padding" was effective as it brought in a lot of money to the firm.
            We brought this to the attention of the managing partner and he thought about it for a minute and thanked us for bringing it to his attention and told us that if we ever find any other evidence of padding we should bring it to his attention.
            One of us said something asking about the evidence we just gave him and he said: "If you ever find any evidence of padding bring it to my attention" and dismissed us. We got the message and said no more.


            Yes, you would cut it as a lawyer for that argument and another recent one I saw.
            As for bloomberg, I'm not surprised. perhaps he delivered an adequately padded envelope to that judge.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

              You've made that assertion twice now. Care to back that up with an actual argument?
              No, you think it's a violation of the First Amendment. And nowhere in your source does that even pop up. When debating you made the positive claim you have to back it up

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

                No, you think it's a violation of the First Amendment. And nowhere in your source does that even pop up. When debating you made the positive claim you have to back it up
                You mean that I'm not allowed to draw conclusions independent from The New York Times? Well, if it satisfies your crooked-finger-sipping-tea-sensibility, then here you go:

                . . . . In New York, the company [Ballyhoo] had accused the city and state legislators of overreach, casting its fight as a First Amendment issue. (Shortly after the city filed suit in March, the company floated a billboard with this message: “Freedom is the foundation of our country.”) . . . .

                "Hate Those Floating Digital Billboards? New York Just Banned Them," by Jesse McKinley, The New York Times, 20 Aug 2019
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                  You mean that I'm not allowed to draw conclusions independent from The New York Times? Well, if it satisfies your crooked-finger-sipping-tea-sensibility, then here you go:
                  Thank you, that source is different than the other NYT piece in the OP. This one does mention the 1A, but that's what the barge company is claiming. Let them fight it over in court and the company will learn real fast that it has nothing to do with the 1A.

                  Balyhoo company sounds like a far-right company, to even make that judgement and have a message that mentions "Freedom" in protest.

                  What's their argument? "The 1A allows us to use barges wherever we want and we can display any words we want?"

                  Good luck.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    New York...The U.K. of the U.S.?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                      One thing I don't miss here in Europe. Zero roadside billboard to be seen.
                      Obviously because Europe is a repressive environment, right? Same logic as is constantly applied to America?

                      Frankly, I have always thought that Europeans simply had better taste and more restraint than we have. I hate billboards and huge, intrusive ads. My feeling is simple - if a company needs that to sell its product, then the product obviously sucks.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        Obviously because Europe is a repressive environment, right? Same logic as is constantly applied to America?

                        Frankly, I have always thought that Europeans simply had better taste and more restraint than we have. I hate billboards and huge, intrusive ads. My feeling is simple - if a company needs that to sell its product, then the product obviously sucks.
                        Yep





                        1 so repressive that there are swat teams all over the place and if you get pulled over in a traffic stop you fear you might get shot.
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X