politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't matter, he was prevented by officials from expressing his opinion. That means his freedom of speech was oppressed.
The first Amendment protects you from the government, I looked into it and it looks like Kennedy center employees are not federal employees so if they decide that your speech in a private place is not allowed, they can kick you out.
So if Kennedy center is not under federal control, how can Trump change the name to include Trump?
Clearly there's a strong federal influence.
But it doesn't have to be federal, it can also be state or even county officials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Center
So you are clearly wrong that they are not federal.
Receives federal funding is all you needed to know they can't restrict freedom of speech/press.
That's definitely something that could be argued in court I'm not a lawyer though.
No need it's clearly established.
"His freedom of speech was oppressed" in functionally the same sense that it is if I get banned from a social media platform or kicked out of a library for making a disturbance. It's not even remotely a First Amendment issue, and him citing the 1A is bonkers.
I think in another life you'd be supporting those obnoxious, far-right "First Amendment auditors" who walk into e.g. a library or USPS building, start making a scene, and think that being kicked out means their constitutional rights have been impinged. Not because you have ill intent but because you fundamentally do not understand what the 1A does or is supposed to do.
it really depends on the context in which he was booing. Reading the article, in this context he did nothing wrong. If you can cheer, you can boo. He was not causing a disturbance.
Sure, and that's a fine opinion to have. I disagree they need to be treated the same way, yet I support his booing regardless of the consequences, and if it were up to me, Trump would be barred from the venue anyway and no booing would happen (not that he functionally could be right now as chairman).
It doesn't make what happened to him even remotely a constitutional issue. This isn't even a little ambiguous; you'd just have to entirely not understand or willfully, grossly misinterpret the 1A to drag it into this.