Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Isn't this how it started 80 years ago in Germany? [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)16. Making a threat doesn't subsequently remove your right to free speech in the future, no.
In any event, standing is required for a case.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing
The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.
Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech. For example, in tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), high school officials in Des Moines, Iowa, had suspended students for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. There was no question that the parents of the students had standing to challenge the restrictions on the wearing of armbands. Mere ideological opposition to a particular government policy, such as the Vietnam War, however, is not sufficient grounds to challenge that policy in court.
Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech. For example, in tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), high school officials in Des Moines, Iowa, had suspended students for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. There was no question that the parents of the students had standing to challenge the restrictions on the wearing of armbands. Mere ideological opposition to a particular government policy, such as the Vietnam War, however, is not sufficient grounds to challenge that policy in court.
And no, 'hate speech' is not prohibited in the US.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It must be alright then to have a Jewish free zone, and a black free zone now also.
LiberalArkie
Dec 2015
#1
The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Beside Themselves With All The Distractions
cantbeserious
Dec 2015
#2
The judge is actually right. Someone from the CAIR needs to go in and get denied service.
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#3
What happens if they post a second sign, "We reserve the right to deny service - we are armed"?
leveymg
Dec 2015
#6
The threat can be a crime - that's circumstantial - if the owner has a reputation for baby eating.
leveymg
Dec 2015
#11
Making a threat doesn't subsequently remove your right to free speech in the future, no.
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#16
Correct, but a threat is grounds for seeking suit for tortious wrong as it might also be grounds
leveymg
Dec 2015
#19
I can't imagine a case where your sign would be taken, prima facie, as a threat.
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#21
If the sign were surrounded by firearms, it might. That is exactly the case here.
leveymg
Dec 2015
#22
So every sign in a gun shop is a threat because it's a gun shop? "No checks." (OR I'LL SHOOT YA!)
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#23
Muslims in this country have enough speech against minorities, etc, that you don't
Yo_Mama
Dec 2015
#18
Why do you think the ACLU had William Smith and James Yates attempt to get a marriage license in KY?
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#9
The case fell apart because to have standing you actually must be denied service.
NutmegYankee
Dec 2015
#13
It was dismissed for lack of standing, because claimants did not show that anyone was refused
Yo_Mama
Dec 2015
#17
Actual refusal and discrimination has to happen in order to sue. And my friend you live in a country
Bluenorthwest
Dec 2015
#28