Quote:
Originally posted by Thorfinn:
But Grojlach, the point is that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not a grant to say anything you like. You always could say anything you like, but the intent of 1st A was to prevent government from punishing you for so doing. "Congress shall make no law, etc." The First Amendment in no way obligates any person or company to provide a forum for you to express your opinion. Just as no Jehovah's Witness can barge into your home at dinnertime and lecture you and claim it as his First Amendment rights, the mall is not obligated to allow Mr. Downs to express his opinion on their grounds, either.
|
Once again (third time in this topic, I think
), I
know the mall was well within its rights and I'm not questioning that either. But that doesn't mean I can't think that it's very drastic and also a bit on the childish side from the mall's side of the matter to actually refer to it so rigorously to keep someone from wearing a relatively harmless slogan on a t-shirt in their mall.
That's the point of view I was referring to in my post and would still keep if he was promoting comparable pro-war slogans, nothing more, nothing less. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I only dragged the First Amendment into my post to help to illustrate why I wouldn't defend Stephen Downs if he wore a "NUKE IRAQ" message on his t-shirt; it's both distasteful and close to being a message of Hate (which I assumed was being dealt with in the First Amendment in the US); but like I said in my previous post, I'm not too familiar with the exact definition of the First Amendment and how it compares to European equivalents, nor am I even sure if it's that particular part of the law I should be referring to (but I'm referring to whatever part of US law makes discriminatory and similar remarks punishable by law). Sorry if there's been some confusion over that.
But my addressing of the First Amendment for that last part wasn't really connected to the rest of my opinions. [img]smile.gif[/img]