Do cities have the authority to ban freedom of speech or freedom of the press?

[The Straight Story]

Do cities have the right to ban anything they want?

[Sinistrous]

1. So how can you say they can ban guns yada, yada yada...

Because speech and the written word are not used in drive-bys, robberies, murders, and suicides.

[Oregone]

2. Plus, the nature of speech hasn't drastically changed since the founders

Yes, mediums have changed (internet, twitter, etc), but is speech now more dangerous? More effective? More deadly? More annoying? More anything? Or is stating your opinion now pretty much the same as stating it then, no matter how you try to do it?

Modern day hand guns, OTOH, are probably something the founders could not even have conceived, and if so, we have no idea if they would have liberally used the word "arms" to include them. Muzzle loaded pistols back then were the mental image they would have if you mentioned the term hand guns. Those couldn't even hit the broad side of a barn at 20 feet.

[petronius]

9. I would say that the advances in communication technology are at least on par with

changes in firearm technology - modern guns do exactly what old guns did, fling little bits of metal very fast. I think the internet or television would be a far bigger surprise to them than a semiautomatic pistol.

Speaking a bit facetiously, if the Founders were brought back today and asked to reconsider the BoR, I suspect they'd be more shocked (and more concerned for society) by a Lady Gaga video than by a Glock...

[Oregone]

12. So? Communication technologies are the mediums

The stated right is freedom of speech/expression.

OTOH, the possession of arms is the second amendment right, yet arms today means something different than arms then, in an entirely inconceivable manner.

You get it? The first amendment refers to an idea, whereas the second amendment is more about a tangible right. The language then does not mean the same as now in the second amendment...it couldn't possibly (the term arms is much expanded). But the idea of freedom expression is relatively constant, more or less, despite how its done.

I think there is a big difference between freedom of expression (even if modes of expression change) and freedom to bear arms (if "arms" means something inconceivably different, and has different social manifestation then it did then in a completely different geopolitical context)

Who cares anyway? They weren't omniscient.

[petronius]

15. I don't see nearly as big a difference as you do, in several areas

Firstly, I don't agree that the meaning of "arms" has changed inconceivably; I suspect that most of the Founders would be very quick to understand and appreciate modern firearms - like I said, they do exactly the same thing, just with more moving parts and a lot more efficiently.

Secondly, I don't agree that there is a substantial difference between the two rights - at bottom they're both merely the right to 'do something.' An expressed idea is a more abstract item than a physical firearm, but that really doesn't matter in the context of the BoR. The 2nd Amendment isn't really about the gun just like the 1st Amendment isn't about the printing press - they're both about freedom of the individual citizen to perform an action. In other words, the gun (no matter its design) is the 'medium' of the 2nd just like the printing press is the medium of the first.

As far as the Founders, they wrote both Amendments in the context of their own times. It's pretty useless to hold imaginary seances of course, but I'd guess that they would be pretty unsurprised by modern weapons and wouldn't see any need to revisit the amendment due to technological advances. On the other hand, technological advances in communication might easily lead them to conclude that some reasoable restrictions on speech were necessary for the good of society...

[Oregone]

16. "at bottom they're both merely the right to 'do something.'"

Yes, one is the right to express oneself freely

The other is the right to bear arms, as it relates to a well-regulated militia (Whatever "arms" means)

Yesterdays categorization of "arms" included muzzle-loading "handguns" that had trouble hitting a target more than a stone throw away, and took quite some time to load. A modern day semi-auto handgun with an extended clip could take out a company of 18th century militia soldiers in no time at all. Is that what they meant by arms (any inconceivable weapon?)? Who knows? Is it important to guess, or more important to consider current day manifestations of this amendment, taken to the extreme?

[Statistical]

28. Modern speech isn't more effective? Really?

How many people could a town crier reach, a local newspaper, someone literally standing on a soap box?

How many people can a TV station reach, a cable news channel, a popular blog, even a mailed newsletter?

[Johonny]

11. + 1

dude has two tunes. I want to smoke, I want to shoot people. I get it already.

[Statistical]

31. The outcome isn't relevent to the question.

The question is do cities have the AUTHORITY do ban .... not SHOULD cities be able to ban.

Those are two different things. The outcome would matter if the question was SHOULD bans be Constitutional.

However the question was do cities have the AUTHORITY to ban and that is a question of Constitutional protections.
Cities are subject to rule of law and the Constitution provides certain protections.
Even if those protections are misguided they exist until revoked (hence the whole should vs authority).

[Sinistrous]

36. Are you saying I should be sorry for

seeing through the OP's bs post?

[Statistical]

37. No I don't think is what I said.

Simple version. It is a question of "can" vs "should".

[xchrom]

3. Speech no, guns yes. Nt

[proteus_lives]

19. Explain the difference please.

[uncommon]

27. There is no difference. nt

[WinkyDink]

35. Were there no difference, there would not be TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS. OR WAS JEFFERSON JUST STUPID?

[Statistical]

33. Speech No, Religion Yes

or Press No, Right to Privacy (choice) Yes.
or Assembly No, Racial discrimination Yes.

See how that can be a dangerous precedent when people get to choose which right they can ignore?

It is called tyranny of the majority.

[hughee99]

4. I support the constitution when it tells me what I want to hear.

When it doesn't, it's because the founders could have never conceived of "X", so it's okay to ignore those rights because the founders INTENDED for us to do that.

[name not needed]

5. Fuck no, but I'm sure Daley would be willing to give it a shot.

[Curmudgeoness]

6. Absolutely no. Speech or press. Cities cannot infringe on rights

that are not easy to argue. Wait, I guess it is, there was the Sedition Act. What happened that brought this question into the discussions?

[depakid]

7. You mean regulate billboards?

[drm604]

8. Which question are you polling?

In your subject line you ask if they can ban freedom of speech or freedom of the press, but in the post you ask if they can ban anything they want.

That's two different questions. Which one are you polling for?

[MadHound]

10. Umm, yes, they can and they do

No shouting fire in crowded buildings, no threatening language directed at others, you know, common sense stuff to help keep people safe.

[michreject]

24. You can yell "fire" in a crowded building at the top of your lungs

You just have to be ready to face the result of your actions.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Same no as before but perhaps even more rabid than the guns

[unkachuck]

14. 'Sure, if I don't like it.'

....I sent my councilman an email regarding this poll; it should be banned by morning....

[jobycom]

17. Of course not. Just like they would not be able to ban militias or the right of the citizenry to

keep or bear arms in a militia.

They can ban things that are not directly protected in the Constitution. They can ban murder. They can ban meth. They can ban ban certain types of weapons. Well, they should be able to, anyway.

[tkmorris]

18. "Free Speech" does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre

The reason I bring up this old chestnut is because people seem to forget that rights guaranteed in the Constitution are not absolutes. Free Speech does not mean you can anything you want whenever and wherever you want. The right of an individual to free speech is balanced and weighed against the welfare of the public.

Similarly, the right to bear arms is not an absolute. A citizen cannot carry any weapon they want, when and where they want. Their right to do so, as with free speech, is balanced against the welfare of the public. This is not new nor is it controversial in any way. Is anyone suggesting that they should be able to carry RPG launchers to their local McDonald's? Of course not, and the reason for that is that we as a society decided long ago that there are limits to the right to bear arms, as there should be. The only thing we are discussing is where it is reasonable to draw the line, i.e. what limitations on the right to bear arms reasonably balance that right against the greater good of the society within which the individual citizen exists. You may think the line should go here, and someone else may believe it rightfully belongs over there, but no one should argue that having any limitation at all is unconstitutional, unless of course they like having egg on their face.

Some one will no doubt rise to exclaim that RPGs are illegal, and thus my theoretical is silly. They would be missing the point entirely. It is perfectly legal to do or say or possess certain things in certain situations but not in others. This is established law in any number of areas. The legality of the thing itself is not the issue, it is merely whether a compelling public need exists to limit the Constitutionally guaranteed right or not.

[KonaKane]

20. Or shoot in one.

[proteus_lives]

21. Your point will be willfully ignored.

By fools and authoritarians.

[HEyHEY]

22. I don't know man, these are two different things

Freedom of speech doesn't put holes in the heads of children out playing when a gunfight happens.

[Statistical]

30. The outcome is irrelevant

The question is do cities have the AUTHORITY do ban .... not SHOULD cities be able to ban.

Those are two different things. The outcome would matter if the question was SHOULD bans be Constitutional.

However the question was do cities have the AUTHORITY to ban and that is a question of Constitutional protections.
Cities are subject to rule of law and the Constitution provides certain protections.
Even if those protections are misguided they exist until revoked (hence the whole should vs authority).

[HEyHEY]

38. Well, he didn't specify moral or legal

[ZombieHorde]

23. Fun poll. nt

[Nye Bevan]

25. No. Cities cannot decree that "Roe versus Wade" does not apply within their boundaries,

for another example. The US Constitution trumps the City Council.

[uncommon]

26. Technically...

they kind of do. The Bill of Rights specifically protects the people from acts of Congress. It has been construed (and rightly I think we can all agree) to apply in a much broader sense.

[Statistical]

29. No technically they don't.

While the original BofR was intended only as a check of federal govt the 14th amendment incorporated those protections against the
states and local governments.

It isn't so much "construed" as the Constitution was ammendmended by the 14th amendment and that modification was both intended by the founders and expanded the scope of BofR to be applicable against all levels of governments not just the federal.

So I guess you would be correct to say "technically they DID".

[uncommon]

39. Ah thank you, I did not have my thinking cap on straight. nt

[Statistical]

32. I am glad you got the wording right.

Most people would say do cities have the RIGHT which is invalid because cities (and states, and federal govt) have no RIGHTS.

Authority (or power) is more accurate.

Once people realize that only the PEOPLE have rights and government merely have powers then the question becomes more obvious.
The powers of our various level of government are defined by the Constitution (both state & federal). Certain powers are prohibited by all levels of government because the conflict with the RIGHTS of the people.

Two of those rights held by the people are freedom of press and speech and thus government lacks the authority to ban them.

[WinkyDink]

34. Who could vote "YES" for this?!?!