Which of the following are protected under the First Amendment?

[John Dibble]

How is handing out condoms outside of a Catholic church protected by the first amendment?  You can't do whatever you want on someone else's property.

^^^^

[John Dibble]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

Not at all, Jake.  Freedom of association refers to private, personal activities, not commercial ones.

So a prostitute couldn't deny service to anyone even if she didn't wish to provide that service to a person?

[John Dibble]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks.

Agreed.

#4 isn't really a First Amendment issue, but should be legal anyway.

Why not?  In what other way can dancing naked be interpreted than as expression?

Commerce, obviously. They aren't dancing out of political concerns or anything of the like, they're doing it for money.

[John Dibble]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks.

Agreed.

#4 isn't really a First Amendment issue, but should be legal anyway.

Why not?  In what other way can dancing naked be interpreted than as expression?

Commerce, obviously. They aren't dancing out of political concerns or anything of the like, they're doing it for money.

What does the money have to do with anything?  It is art, produced and consumed for its entertainment value. 

Entertainment sure - but art, no. If you think strip dancing is art, then you have horrible taste - that's like comparing a Picasso or a da Vinci to a bucket of paint thrown on a canvas randomly.

As far as it being protected by the first amendment, I hold that as highly questionable. I'd say the federal government has no business in it no matter what - if it's only commerce, it's certainly not interstate commerce. I would say no local governments have business banning it either(except on public property), since it's between consenting adults. But as to whether it's really constitutionally protected under the first amendment, I would have to say only if it is done for political or activist reasons.

To answer BRTD's question - depends on whether it's on private property first of all. If it is the government has no business unless it's causing a sufficient noise pollution for neighboring properties. If it's on public property, it depends on whether or not it's being done in a way that disturbs the peace.

[John Dibble]

Well strip clubs are private property.

Did I assert otherwise? I did say the government has no business getting into it, didn't I?

[John Dibble]

well you basically said that any such expression on private property is protected by the First Amendment. Therefore strip clubs would be.

The concert as you described it was more in the realm of actual speech and expression(statements are being made), and not just to make money like stripping is. I find it highly questionable as to whether stripping solely for the purpose of getting money can be considered speech or expression or not.

[John Dibble]

No, stripping is an art, and anyway taste is purely subjective.

Philistine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You think only political speech is protected under the first amendment?!  Some libertarian you are.  It will be easy enough to define away nearly all speech as something other than purely political.

As for your perrenial private property reference, are you suggesting that the poor, who have no property, should be denied their freedom of speech (and nudity)?  No, the propertyless must be allowed free expression in the public domain, otherwise speech becomes the purvue solely of the priviledged.
[/quote]

When did I say that I only supported freedom of political speech? Speech is speech, it's words that comes out of one's mouth - expression isn't quite the same thing. Stripping isn't speech. Expression maybe, but not speech. Speech itself is allowed in all forms(except slander or threats, which are not protected speech for obvious reasons) on public property.

And it's utterly ridiculous that you think that strip dancing, an act that is obviously done for money and money alone, constitutes expression. Interpretive dance is expression, strip dancing for dollar bills is just a commercial act.

<warning to others - don't look if you are offended easily>
THIS is expression via nudity:
http://www.nakedprotesters.com/public-nudity/peta-chick-torture.jpg

and I would say that doing this in public is arguably protected by the first amendment. But dancing nude for money is not expression, it's just a way to make money that conveys no message or idea like expression would.

[John Dibble]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

Not at all, Jake.  Freedom of association refers to private, personal activities, not commercial ones.

So a prostitute couldn't deny service to anyone even if she didn't wish to provide that service to a person?

Opebo got owned.

You know, this is the second time I've asked this question and I've yet to hear a response from him.

[John Dibble]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

Not at all, Jake.  Freedom of association refers to private, personal activities, not commercial ones.

So a prostitute couldn't deny service to anyone even if she didn't wish to provide that service to a person?

Opebo got owned.

You know, this is the second time I've asked this question and I've yet to hear a response from him.

Prostitutes and lunch counters are very different things, Dibble.  See above.

No, they are both providing a service to other people in exchange for money. The only difference between them is the service provided - one provides food, the other provides sex. You also say the lunch counter is throwing itself open to the commercial attention of the general public, but the prostitute is not. Prostitutes are in their business for the money, and therefore commercial considerations are NOT secondary - if all they wanted was sex they could easily get some considering there are men willing to pay them for it.

Is a prostitute on a street corner not putting herself in the public eye, advertising herself to the public as a woman who sells her body for money? Does a brothel not do the same?

You are only making a differentiation because it's convenient for your arguments, but it's quite clear to everyone here that your arguments reek of inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

[John Dibble]

If the brothel company had a policy not to serve blacks, the situation would be identical.
Otherwise, it's not.

That's the point - opebo is holding the commercial service of prostitution to a different standard than the commercial service of selling food in terms of whether or not they can choose who they wish to provide service to or not provide service to.