It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What the hell are you going to do about it eh? Did I offend you and your 'southern sensibilities'? Well why don't you cry about it then.
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You make me sick.
US Supreme Court on limited speech
this Court assumes that Milford operates a limited public forum. A State establishing such a forum is not required to and does not allow persons to engage in every type of speech. It may be justified in reserving its forum for certain groups or the discussion of certain topics. E.g., Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829. The power to so restrict speech, however, is not without limits. The restriction must not discriminate against speech based on viewpoint, ibid., and must be reasonable in light of the forum's purpose, Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806. Pp. 5-6.
A public entity may not generally exclude even religious worship from an open public forum. Similarly, a public entity that creates a limited public forum for the discussion of certain specified topics may not exclude a speaker simply because she approaches those topics from a religious point of view. Thus, in Lamb's Chapel we held that a public school that permitted its facilities to be used for the discussion of family issues and child rearing could not deny access to speakers presenting a religious point of view on those issues. See Lamb's Chapel, 508 U. S., at 393-394.
But, while a public entity may not censor speech about an authorized topic based on the point of view expressed by the speaker, it has broad discretion to "preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 836 (1976); see also Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 275, n. 6 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("A school's extracurricular activities constitute a part of the school's teaching mission, and the school accordingly must make `decisions concerning the content of those activities' " (quoting Widmar, 454 U. S., at 278 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)). Accordingly, "control over access to a nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806 (1985). The novel question that this case presents concerns the constitutionality of a public school's attempt to limit the scope of a public forum it has created. More specifically, the question is whether a school can, consistently with the First Amendment, create a limited public forum that admits the first type of religious speech without allowing the other two.
Originally posted by Koka
I don't know enough about the American constitution, Bill of rights...etc, but is she not free to be an antagonistic and ignorant facist and an attention seeker?
Originally posted by James the Lesser
Nygdan, Lee didn't fight for the confeds, he fought for Virginia, if Virginia had stayed in the Union he would have fought for the United States of America. He was loyal to his state, not the whole CSA.
But yes, it was treason. And yes, if Washington had failed, the Stars and Stripes would not be flown today. Hell, some states in the CSA still fly the Stars and Bars. Is it right to be so proud of slavery and treason and starting a war that killed millions because the North didn't approve of owning other humans
This flag IS associated with a negative connotation for several reasons, mostly due to its use by radical fringe groups
I happen to think the Confederate flag is a cool design.
Originally posted by Amuk
You will refrain form calling people bastards, scumbag traitors, and so on if you can not talk about a entire region of America with calling them all a bunch of childish names don't post at all.
Grady has already received one or as much as I agree with his sentiments I would have gave him one too.
no more vile lying terrorist scumbags
then George Washington and the other revolutionaries
Originally posted by Gazrok
What's next? Banning the display of the pre-revolutionary flags?
Sorry, but this is bull#.
This whole idea of the Rebel flag being racist is bull#.
I suppose next we ban re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard as their car had one on the roof?
I hope she gets every damned penny....
This PC bull# continues to go further and further.... Sometimes people really need to take a step back and quit getting so damn offended. Quit being a bunch of pansies.... Great example, could "Blazing Saddles" be made today? Hell no! If people laughed at themselves more often, maybe they wouldn't get so offended at the smallest little thing....jeez!
Originally posted by invent4u2
It's about time we Southerners can use our Confederate flag to proudly show our "southern roots" Those who continue to see it as a throw back to the days of slavery ARE NOT IN DIRECT TOUCH WITH MODERN REALITY and show that they really are single minded and not educated!