Thread: Freedom of Speech under Fire!
Results 1 to 4 of 4
#1 Freedom of Speech under Fire!
09-23-2012, 04:25 PM“Speaking in the public forum is protected by the First Amendment,” Miller said Thursday. “And the First Amendment protects your right to speak regardless of what you know.”
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
But, of course the full story is much more complicated than that. The litigious idiots who filed lawsuit have revealed their ignorance twice as follows:
Four New Orleans tour guides claim their First Amendment rights are being trampled by city regulations requiring them to pass a history exam, submit to drug testing and undergo a criminal background check.
City officials claim they have a strong interest in regulating guides to protect the cash-cow industry of tourism. But Matthew Miller, an attorney for the guides, told FoxNews.com his clients — who give tours of the city’s French Quarter, Garden District, cemeteries, restaurants, bars and other locations — practice a “constitutionally protected activity” no different from street performers or public preachers who talk about religion or politics.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/23...#ixzz27K402r5P
09-24-2012, 12:45 AM
The First does not cover this...
WTF is going on here?
Hold a politician's feet to the fire, you get arrested. Give the wrong information, get an abulance-chasing schiester to represent you...
Methinks I was born too lateGovernment is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
09-24-2012, 01:02 AM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye, not the least of which might be some racial politics. I've interacted with a number of black Washingtonians who have some very strange ideas about the history of DC and its neighborhoods. Even worse is that some of the disinformation is readily available on the web under the apparent approval of educational institutions and credentialed persons.
When I stayed at the Provencal in the French Quarter, they handed out a quick info sheet. One of the things on that sheet was that "cajun" and "creole" do not refer to black people (not in those exact words but quite clearly nonetheless). In addition, the front desk clerk asked me if I had ever been to New Orleans before, and when I said that I hadn't, she took a rudimentary map of the French Quarter that the hotel had on hand, and took a highlighter and drew barriers along the borders which I should not cross for my own safety. I didn't cross those borders but have little doubt about what defined them.
Lots of things about New Orleans seem to come back to race. After Katrina, there was a New Orleans preacher and "activist" who was claiming that the light skinned blacks and white people were conspiring to rid the city of dark skinned blacks.While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun
09-24-2012, 11:00 AM
At first I thought this was an employer/employee matter, in which I would have sided with the city as the employer. But it's more complicated than that.
I don't have a problem with making people who want to be tour guides take a test on the local history of the area in which they will be guiding tourists, in order to maintain a certain standard. I also don't have a problem with the criminal record checks, because the people will be given a license from the city, so the city must cover their liability issues. I don't see the need for drug testing, unless the guide is going to be operating a motor vehicle in the process of being a tour guide-especially since many of these guides, according to the article, are volunteers, not paid employees.
We sold our rights away in the 80s in the drug war. It's ridiculous to ask a volunteer to submit urine to the city unless that person is operating machinery or a motor vehicle that would put the city at risk. I'm not big on employer drug testing in general, but it's legal in an employer/employee sense. I really don't think it should be extended to volunteers without a clear reason.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|