(33724)

It appears we can agree in the fact that what the police did was wrong and did infact violate his first ammendment rights?

Here is where we disagree. As long as there is some logical consistency, factual accuracy, or persuasive appeal to the opinionator's claim, we cannot refute the claim is inaccurate. The you're right, Im wrong context is elementary in nature but an actual fact based arguement would be "stimulating". Wouldnt you agree?

And how can one be right all the time if your methods aren't foolproof?




What did I neglect to cover?

I also believe this is a firewall issue. Many advanced configurations allow you to set custom limits for downlad/upload speed. What firewall and model Router are you using?

exactly what is being taken out if context? From what an uneducated man like myself can seem to understand is that you dont want to debate this issue. Now thats either because you have no knowledge of the subjet at hand, or you just like picking on other people because you have a serious God complex.

The rule of the public forum is an outgrowth of "content-neutral" doctrine: under this rule, the government is generally powerless to regulate speech in traditional public fora such as streets and parks, since these areas are property held in the public trust for political use. However, the public forum rule has important qualifying rules:

In a "limited designated forum" - that is, government property opened to public use for a particular purpose only - subject matter regulations are appropriate. Thus, a city may forbid obscene speech and advertisement in publicly owned transportation vehicles, such as streetcards.
Similarly, public school facilities opened to the public as after school meeting places are limited-designated fora.Thus, subject-matter regulation is appropriate in administering public school space requests. However, discriminating against religious speech, while seemingly a subject matter regulation, is apparently a forbidden viewpoint regulation.

Furthermore, The Constitution prevents the government from punishing you for your speech (generally unless such speech presents a clear and present danger. Where is the danger in an art exhibit?

In the U.S., the default position is usually in favor of free speech. For example, speaking or writing ill of a public figure is not slander/libel, unless it is an intentional lie meant to cause harm

R u serious? is this your rebuttal?

your arrogance just astonishes me.

instead of taking this way off topic, display what evidence u have proving his opinion wrong. I mean, since you're right all the time