Students Silenced for Singing Anthem at Lincoln Memorial

Originally posted by centurion1211
Typical liberal response from Adevoc Satanae. The rules are for everyone else, but libs give themselves an exemption.

Really? Where did I ever say anyone should be exempt? Why do you need to just say things that are not true in order to make your case?

I wonder if "satan's advocate" would also think these groups would need a permit to sing at the Lincoln Memorial?

If you need a permit, you need a permit. I could care less who you are. If you whine about not getting to sing whatever song you want because your activist group decided to demonstrate where they were prohibited from doing so, I will call you out no matter who you are.

Originally posted by centurion1211
I think with a little research you'll find that the "trash America from within" movement - including bashing the flag and anthem - started soon after the 1917 communist revolution in Russia. As you can see, it is still going strong and if the posters on ATS such as we've seen on this thread are any measure, gaining strength.

Show me these posts bashing the flag and anthem if you would be so kind.

I posted this a few days ago in the other thread regarding this topic. I don't see the big deal here. It wasn't BECAUSE they were singing the National Anthem, it was because the area they were singing in was a content-neutral zone.

Content-neutral restrictions (also called non-content-based restrictions) regulate speech without regard to its subject matter or the viewpoint conveyed.[1] The Supreme Court has held that the “government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.’”[2] Such content-neutral restrictions may be permissible even when they incidentally affect the content of speech to some degree because, in most cases, such regulations “pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.”[3]

Examples of content-neutral restrictions that have been held to be constitutional include laws that restrict the distribution of printed materials to prevent litter in a public space[4] or laws that prohibit the use of loudspeakers in order to reduce noise.[5] Facially neutral regulations, however, can be invalid if they have a disproportionate effect on a particular type of speech or expression.[6]

itlaw.wikia.com...

Additional discussion: www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 13-8-2010 by Aggie Man]