What the fuck is this thing?
I'm not big on First Amendment doctrine*: Every doe-eyed, milksop, do-gooder, limousine liberal motherfucker** that enters law school invariably blasts out a douchy line to the effect of "Ooooh, I want to work at the ACLU" followed up by something to the effect of free speech. Here's where the failings are in that:
1. First Amendment doctrine is not old school "
Fuck the Draft" stuff anymore, and protected rights of civil expression; you're far more likely to wind up fighting over a city councilman's draft proposal of their own
Sunshine Law.
2. Those cases, in any event, just don't come down the pipe very often...
Tinker v. Des Moines is a once in a generation deal
3. If you really, truly, sincerely give a shit about constitutional law, and the constitution, and how this document truly affects your life and practically everything else, then -sincerely- you need to pay far more attention to
federalism/
dormant commerce/
commerce clause doctrines*** and, especially, to separation of powers issues as pertains to the Executive's administrative powers.
Agencies run our lives kids, not Congress...
Limousine Liberals in their natural environment: Spending money from mommy and daddy's trust account. And, being painfully, hopelessly white.
That said, sometimes, something truly amazing comes down the pipe RE: First Amendment issues.
The Onion has some outstanding reporting on the recent 7-2 decision that came down in
City of Charleston v. The Kanawha Players.
The decision came Monday in response to the case of a Charleston, WV theater troupe that had been sued by city officials for staging a sexually explicit play with public funds. Reversing the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the theater, an outcome free-speech advocates are calling a victory and Justice Ginsburg called "a bitch-slap in the face of all those uptight limp-dicks.
Justice Ginsburg: Gangsta' for free expression...
Via the Onion
But, perhaps the most vociferous defense of the obscene speech came from departing Justice Stevens, the last bastion of the Court's left wing:
"I'm beginning to wonder if you really understand what 'abridging the freedom of speech' means at all," said Stevens, a 34-year veteran of the court known for his often-nuanced interpretations of the First Amendment. "I'm also wondering whether you and your fat-faced plaintiffs over there need to have some respect for constitutionally protected expression fucked into your empty hick skulls."
Surprisingly, (or not-so,
given his love of dirty talk and pubes on soda cans), Justice Thomas likewise forcefully defended the WV Player's rights to make a few dick jokes:
"I don't know what kind of bullshit passes for jurisprudence down in the 4th Circuit these days," Thomas wrote. "But those pricks can take their arguments about speech that 'appeals only to prurient interests' and go suck a dog's asshole."
Wink. Wink.
The
whole article is sit-your-pants funny. Sometimes the Onion just knocks it right out the park.
Go there...Now, minion.
__________________________ *
Do you want to know what makes Baby Jesus sad? There are actually five rights promised by the First Amendment (herein, I refer to free speech). They are: Speech, Assembly, Press, Free Exercise of religion and anti-Establishment of religion by the government. That's cool. The sad part is that A) less than 10% of U.S. Citizens know this...and B) 22% of U.S. citizens can name all five "Simpsons".** For the record, I am so damned far to the left that Trotsky is a statist pig in my eyes...that said, I do not like squishy liberals who compromise on their values, are utterly humorless and self-absorbed, and, in any event, toe a doctrinaire line that would make Kim Jong-Il grin from the great beyond in its mousy obsequiesness.
*** Nerd confession; I have published some pretty expansive academic pieces on these topics. Shhhh. Don't tell anyone.These footnotes, hell, this whole blog, makes Baby Jesus sad...
O
T
T
