Greene County, Missouri is banning "all individuals" from "wearing clothing, apparel, or other accessories containing disruptive or inflammatory language or content" in County buildings. Constitutionally permissible regulation in a nonpublic forum, or unconstitutionally viewpoint-based or vague?
Post Two (Prof. Wasserman):
Is Cohen v. California still good law? If so, this cannot be valid, at least in the main run of cases. Granted, that case analyzed outside the public forum doctrine, which had not yet assumed its central place. But it seems to be identical--disruptive or inflammatory language in a county building. This actually seems more blatant, since it is a direct regulation of speech, rather than a neutral law applied to speech.
Post Three (Prof. Volokh):
But Cohen rested on the law's being a general criminal law,
applicable everywhere. "Cohen was tried under a statute applicable
throughout the entire State. Any attempt to support this conviction on
the ground that the statute seeks to preserve an appropriately decorous
atmosphere in the courthouse where Cohen was arrested must fail in the
absence of any language in the statute that would have put appellant on
notice that certain kinds of otherwise permissible speech or conduct
would nevertheless, under California law, not be tolerated in certain
places." I would think that the nonpublic forum rules would be more
government-friendly, though perhaps not government-friendly enough to
authorize this restriction.
Thoughts? Vagueness issue? Is it reasonable in light of the purpose of the non-public forum?
No comments:
Post a Comment