Supreme Court justices say military-base protester’s case isn’t about free speech
Source: Washington Post
John Dennis Apel, an antiwar protester arrested on a California military base for demonstrating in a spot set aside for public protests, thought he had a pretty good free-speech case for the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Most of the justices think otherwise at least for now.
Members of the court repeatedly shut down Apel attorney Erwin Chemerinsky when he tried to raise Apels constitutional rights as part of the courts consideration of a federal law that allows commanders to bar a person from a military base.
You keep sliding into the First Amendment issue, which is not the issue on which the court accepted the case, Justice Antonin Scalia said. Were only interested in whether the statute applies.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-justices-say-military-base-protesters-case-isnt-about-free-speech/2013/12/04/7f35a524-5d21-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story.html
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)nikto
(3,284 posts)Speaking openly about controversial topics or demonstrating disagreement on
major issues is not free speech.
At least, not anymore.
That's just the way it is now.
Don't forget, this is America.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Response to alp227 (Original post)
delrem This message was self-deleted by its author.
rpannier
(24,330 posts)If it was about protesting abortions on military bases or greater access for religious groups on military bases it would be a First Amendment issue Freedom of Religion
Volaris
(10,272 posts)former9thward
(32,028 posts)That is pretty clear at the link. The case is about what authority a base commander has been given by a federal law. The military has been pretty tolerant of this guy given he vandalized an entrance sign to the base and they didn't even arrest him for that.
elleng
(130,975 posts)Many here (and elsewhere) view S.Ct. matters as purely political, when they rarely are such.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)That is a fact that I'm just sayin'.