Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New York State attacks the First Amendment

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

  • Half Pint John
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    New York...The U.K. of the U.S.?

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post







    There's a couple of hundred more here.
    What don't you understand duh...none of those are roadside.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    1st amendment has nothing to do with it. Stop making stuff up.
    You've made that assertion twice now. Care to back that up with an actual argument?

    Leave a comment:


  • inevtiab1e
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    Speech is speech. Expression is expression. Advertising is advertising. The State of New York is seeking to restrict one form of advertising, but encourages nearly identical forms elsewhere. Barring a serious public interest at stake -- which can't be provided by the State -- this boils down to a state-sanctioned restriction on speech, which puts it foursquare in the First Amendment's purview.
    1st amendment has nothing to do with it. Stop making stuff up.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    What does this have to do with the 1st amendment? Is that what a RW outlet is saying? Your link to the NYT doesn't mention the 1st amendment at all.
    Speech is speech. Expression is expression. Advertising is advertising. The State of New York is seeking to restrict one form of advertising, but encourages nearly identical forms elsewhere. Barring a serious public interest at stake -- which can't be provided by the State -- this boils down to a state-sanctioned restriction on speech, which puts it foursquare in the First Amendment's purview.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X