Which of the following are protected under the First Amendment?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks. And I would love to do numbers 8 and 9.

[Everett]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks. And I would love to do numbers 8 and 9.

I would love to take your condoms and stuff them up your nose.

Also, I wonder how people play "live swearing" on stage.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks. And I would love to do numbers 8 and 9.

I would love to take your condoms and stuff them up your nose.

Also, I wonder how people play "live swearing" on stage.

Clearly you didn't do too well in elemntary school English. Let's break the sentence down:

Subject "A band playing live"

The noun being band, while playing live being part of the subject as it simply serves as a further description.

Predictate: "swearing on stage"

Swearing of course being the action, on stage an adverb as it describes where.

The reason I included that was because apparnetely it's illegal to swear in public in Virginia Beach, making me wonder if the shows I go to would therefore be illegal there becuase of all the swearing.

[Everett]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks. And I would love to do numbers 8 and 9.

I would love to take your condoms and stuff them up your nose.

Also, I wonder how people play "live swearing" on stage.

Clearly you didn't do too well in elemntary school English. Let's break the sentence down:

Subject "A band playing live"

The noun being band, while playing live being part of the subject as it simply serves as a further description.

Predictate: "swearing on stage"

Swearing of course being the action, on stage an adverb as it describes where.

The reason I included that was because apparnetely it's illegal to swear in public in Virginia Beach, making me wonder if the shows I go to would therefore be illegal there becuase of all the swearing.

Clearly you didn't do well in college sarcasm or elementary school English, as you not only failed to catch my sarcasm, you apparently can't even spell "elementary" correctly. I was nitpicking at your rather incoherent sentence structure that makes it rather ambiguous what the band is doing, playing live, or playing "live swearing".

Also, can you elaborate on Virginia Beach? Is there some reason why swearing is not allowed?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks. And I would love to do numbers 8 and 9.

I would love to take your condoms and stuff them up your nose.

Also, I wonder how people play "live swearing" on stage.

Clearly you didn't do too well in elemntary school English. Let's break the sentence down:

Subject "A band playing live"

The noun being band, while playing live being part of the subject as it simply serves as a further description.

Predictate: "swearing on stage"

Swearing of course being the action, on stage an adverb as it describes where.

The reason I included that was because apparnetely it's illegal to swear in public in Virginia Beach, making me wonder if the shows I go to would therefore be illegal there becuase of all the swearing.

Clearly you didn't do well in college sarcasm or elementary school English, as you not only failed to catch my sarcasm, you apparently can't even spell "elementary" correctly. I was nitpicking at your rather incoherent sentence structure that makes it rather ambiguous what the band is doing, playing live, or playing "live swearing".

Also, can you elaborate on Virginia Beach? Is there some reason why swearing is not allowed?

I don't know, I just remember someone here (I think it was nickshepDEM) saying that while he was in Virginia Beach seeing "No Cursing" signs everywhere and was told by his friend that this was enforced.

[Emsworth]

All of the above activities are expressive (except 3, 4, and 9), and are in general protected speech.

However, there are a couple of points that must be kept in mind. The freedom of speech, like any other right, is subject to additional restrictions on government property. Just as there is no right to bear arms in a government building, so too is there no right to express oneself as one pleases on government property. It is perfectly permissible, therefore, for the government to ban the burning of effigies on publicly owned streets. The only rule is that these restrictions must be content-neutral. For example, the government cannot ban the burning of a Bush effigy on a publicly owned street, while permitting the burning of a Kerry effigy.

Secondly, tearing up books in public may be prohibited by littering laws, and burning objects by anti-pollution laws.

[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.

^^^^

[nini2287]

All except

4-if it's on public property

9-if it's on the church's property

[Jake]

Assuming public property for number nine, 3, 6, and 9 are constitutional.

[Speed of Sound]

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

[Giant Saguaro]

Well 7 and 10 are, the rest are in that shady area. Not serving blacks is least defensible under the First Amendment, IMO.

[© tweed]

All should be legal, provided a few conditions, but I don't know that a few are protected under the first amendment.

[MaC]

how is refusing to serve blacks remotely linked to the First Amendment?

[Cubby]

how is refusing to serve blacks remotely linked to the First Amendment?

Its not, white people voting here are just afraid of being called racists.

[The Constitarian]

they are all protected but refusing to serve blacks was later made illegal.  I don't think it should be illegal, if people are dumb enough to turn away money then let them follow their idiotic beliefs.

[opebo]

they are all protected but refusing to serve blacks was later made illegal.  I don't think it should be illegal, if people are dumb enough to turn away money then let them follow their idiotic beliefs.

You're mistaking their situation - the restauranteurs were not 'turning away money' out of racism, they were following the dictates of the market.  The great majority of their potential customers were white, and these whites would refuse to eat in the company of blacks, so banning blacks was the more rational, self-interested, laissez-faire capitalist course of action.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

how is refusing to serve blacks remotely linked to the First Amendment?

Apparnetely it's your "free expression" to deny blacks service. I got into some argument with Philip over this. He thinks denying blacks service is more protected than dancing naked.

[Jake]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

So why isn't dancing naked?

[DanielX]

All of the above activities are expressive (except 3, 4, and 9), and are in general protected speech.

However, there are a couple of points that must be kept in mind. The freedom of speech, like any other right, is subject to additional restrictions on government property. Just as there is no right to bear arms in a government building, so too is there no right to express oneself as one pleases on government property. It is perfectly permissible, therefore, for the government to ban the burning of effigies on publicly owned streets. The only rule is that these restrictions must be content-neutral. For example, the government cannot ban the burning of a Bush effigy on a publicly owned street, while permitting the burning of a Kerry effigy.

Secondly, tearing up books in public may be prohibited by littering laws, and burning objects by anti-pollution laws.

Verry expressive, although I would think 3, 4, and 9 should not be under federal jurisdiction, even if they are acceptable to regulate or ban.

[opebo]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

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

[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?

[A18]

how is refusing to serve blacks remotely linked to the First Amendment?

Apparnetely it's your "free expression" to deny blacks service. I got into some argument with Philip over this. He thinks denying blacks service is more protected than dancing naked.

Uh, no. I said neither is protected by the First Amendment. However, denying blacks service is at least remotely connected to free association, whereas dancing naked is obviously not covered by anything.

[opebo]

how is refusing to serve blacks remotely linked to the First Amendment?

Apparnetely it's your "free expression" to deny blacks service. I got into some argument with Philip over this. He thinks denying blacks service is more protected than dancing naked.

Uh, no. I said neither is protected by the First Amendment. However, denying blacks service is at least remotely connected to free association, whereas dancing naked is obviously not covered by anything.

No, dancing naked is clearly speech.

[Speed of Sound]

how is refusing to serve blacks remotely linked to the First Amendment?

Apparnetely it's your "free expression" to deny blacks service. I got into some argument with Philip over this. He thinks denying blacks service is more protected than dancing naked.

Uh, no. I said neither is protected by the First Amendment. However, denying blacks service is at least remotely connected to free association, whereas dancing naked is obviously not covered by anything.

No, dancing naked is clearly speech.

Actually, according to definition, it is.