If you want to prevent something like fighting, then you ban fighting and you send in law enforcement when people do fight. It’s hardly ever constitutional to ban speech to prevent something else. You have to ban the ‘something else.’
BYU law professor Frederick Gedicks
Experts warn Ogden that profanity ban could be unconstitutional
August 13, 1012
Experts warn Ogden that profanity ban could be unconstitutional
August 13, 1012
I think it will be an uphill battle. One of the major problems is where they are proposing this. Parks are like the Colosseum; they have always been the place where people come together. They are the ultimate place for free speech.
I completely understand where they are coming from, but the solution is not to ban the content of the speech. The focus should be more on the actual conduct they are trying to prevent.
University of Utah law professor Erika George
Experts warn Ogden that profanity ban could be unconstitutional
August 13, 1012
Experts warn Ogden that profanity ban could be unconstitutional
August 13, 1012
To the Standard-Examiner's credit, they've ferreted out advice (for the City Council's enlightenment, we hope) on Ogden's proposed anti-profanity ordinance from the experts, constitutional law scholars at both of Utah's two law schools:
Hopefully the Ogden City Council will write this down so they don't forget it: "Experts say banning speech is almost never constitutional."
While this morning's S-E story reports that "[t]he city still has some time to adjust the ordinance before the council votes," we'll go out on a limb and urge the Council to drive a stake through the heart of City Public Services Director Jay Lowder's bone-headed ordinance, and to do so immediately.
And we additionally hope the Council won't waste valuable time trying to placate Mr. Lowder in a probably futile attempt to craft an ordinance based on the "vestigial" constitutional doctrine upholding bans on "fighting words". The doctrine's all but dead as far as most informed folks are concerned. "Tellingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since 1946."
While this morning's S-E story reports that "[t]he city still has some time to adjust the ordinance before the council votes," we'll go out on a limb and urge the Council to drive a stake through the heart of City Public Services Director Jay Lowder's bone-headed ordinance, and to do so immediately.
And we additionally hope the Council won't waste valuable time trying to placate Mr. Lowder in a probably futile attempt to craft an ordinance based on the "vestigial" constitutional doctrine upholding bans on "fighting words". The doctrine's all but dead as far as most informed folks are concerned. "Tellingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since 1946."
Our advice to the panty-waisted Mr. Lowder:
Our City Council has more important work to do than bringing about an Orwell-style, language correct Ogden nanny-state, dont'cha think?
That's our take; and we're stickin' to it.
And with that, what say YOU?
Update 8/16/12 10:00 a.m.: The Standard chimes in on this topic this morning, with this strong, no nonsense editorial, hitting most of the major points we made up-thread:
If fighting erupts any time at any Ogden City-sponsored recreational event or any city-owned recreational facility, advise city employees to adhere to the firm rules of American constitutional jurisprudence, and simply call the cops.It ain't that complicated in the final analysis, in our never-humble opinion.
Our City Council has more important work to do than bringing about an Orwell-style, language correct Ogden nanny-state, dont'cha think?
That's our take; and we're stickin' to it.
And with that, what say YOU?
Update 8/16/12 10:00 a.m.: The Standard chimes in on this topic this morning, with this strong, no nonsense editorial, hitting most of the major points we made up-thread:
