4 ms·

I would assume that the posters in question would be non-sponsor advertising posters facing sites associated with the games, although the original article doesn

by ern 17y ago

I would assume that the posters in question would be non-sponsor advertising posters facing sites associated with the games, although the original article doesn't elaborate. Nonetheless, the tendency of governments to violate civil liberties to prevent "ambush marketing" at big sporting events is quite disturbing.

pavel_lishin 17y ago
Yeah, at first I thought that maybe "poster" means something completely different in UK English.
patio11 17y ago
While I have immense respect for the United Kingdom, in the United States, you could almost certainly put up a poster saying "The government says it has the right to prohibit me from saying 'Go Nike'. The Constitution says I have the right to say 'go suck eggs'." (Even the most ardent defender of the Supreme Court's commercial speech jurisprudence -- which is in my mind largely mistaken -- would have a hard, hard time finding against a private citizen for political commentary of that nature.)
- anamax 17y ago
  > Even the most ardent defender of the Supreme Court's commercial speech jurisprudence -- which is in my mind largely mistaken -- would have a hard, hard time finding against a private citizen for political commentary of that nature. Huh? The commercial speech argument is that folks who gather together for commercial activity have the same free speech rights as other folks in other circumstances. That argument doesn't imply anything about stopping other people from saying things. Here's the difference. The commercial speech argument says that any company can say "nike sucks", that the govt can not impose anti-disparagment rules. It doesn't say that Nike can insist that other folks not say "nike sucks". I'd like to say that I don't understand how anyone can confuse the two, but we do have lots of folks who think that their free speech rights are being violated when someone else criticizes them. (If you're one of those folks, you're wrong. Your right to speak does not restrict my right to speak.)
  - patio11 17y ago
    You misunderstand what I'm saying. This is a description of fact: the United States Supreme Court has a well-established body of law which holds that the Constitutional protections afforded to speech of a commercial nature are less extensive than the Constitutional protections afforded to speech of a non-commercial nature. Therefore, there is at least theoretically a risk of the government being allowed to do something analogous to this in spite of the First Amendment against speech restrictions, on the theory that the prohibited speech was commercial in nature. However, it is unlikely that that action would be in the mainstream of constitutional interpretation in the US, and it is vanishingly unlikely it would be upheld if the commercial speech was also political, such as if the speech self-referentially criticized the government. This is a statement of opinion: non-withstanding the well-established body of case law, I believe that the Supreme Court is wrong and that commercial speech has and deserves full protection under the First Amendment.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > You misunderstand what I'm saying. I did misstate your position, but I still don't see how that position was in what you wrote.
  - uriel 17y ago
    > The commercial speech argument is that folks who gather together for commercial activity have the same free speech rights as other folks in other circumstances. That argument doesn't imply anything about stopping other people from saying things. I think the argument is simpler, it is that "Congress shall make no law" actually means Congress shall make no law. If people don't like what the 1st says, they should propose a new amendment, not try to pretend they can ignore what it currently says.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > If people don't like what the 1st says, they should propose a new amendment, not try to pretend they can ignore what it currently says. That ship sailed a long time ago. One interesting thing about 1st amendment interpretation is that actual political speech (which pretty much everyone agrees was the point of the 1st amendment) is significantly more restricted than pornography even though pornography's"lack of restrictions" is justified on the basis that it is political speech....
ErrantX 17y ago
Indeed. I'd support them if the proposal was to take people using their properties for commercial advertising to court to find out is they were allowed to remove it (I suspect they would be told they cant... but you never know). But unilateral rights? jeez.
bendtheblock 17y ago
I don't see why this would make a difference. The only reason it would, is if the tenancy agreement of those private individuals banned them from using their space for commercial reasons. Even then, this would be a civil offence and not a criminal offence.

by ern 17y ago

pavel_lishin 17y ago

Yeah, at first I thought that maybe "poster" means something completely different in UK English.

patio11 17y ago

While I have immense respect for the United Kingdom, in the United States, you could almost certainly put up a poster saying "The government says it has the right to prohibit me from saying 'Go Nike'. The Constitution says I have the right to say 'go suck eggs'." (Even the most ardent defender of the Supreme Court's commercial speech jurisprudence -- which is in my mind largely mistaken -- would have a hard, hard time finding against a private citizen for political commentary of that nature.)

anamax 17y ago
> Even the most ardent defender of the Supreme Court's commercial speech jurisprudence -- which is in my mind largely mistaken -- would have a hard, hard time finding against a private citizen for political commentary of that nature. Huh? The commercial speech argument is that folks who gather together for commercial activity have the same free speech rights as other folks in other circumstances. That argument doesn't imply anything about stopping other people from saying things. Here's the difference. The commercial speech argument says that any company can say "nike sucks", that the govt can not impose anti-disparagment rules. It doesn't say that Nike can insist that other folks not say "nike sucks". I'd like to say that I don't understand how anyone can confuse the two, but we do have lots of folks who think that their free speech rights are being violated when someone else criticizes them. (If you're one of those folks, you're wrong. Your right to speak does not restrict my right to speak.)
- patio11 17y ago
  You misunderstand what I'm saying. This is a description of fact: the United States Supreme Court has a well-established body of law which holds that the Constitutional protections afforded to speech of a commercial nature are less extensive than the Constitutional protections afforded to speech of a non-commercial nature. Therefore, there is at least theoretically a risk of the government being allowed to do something analogous to this in spite of the First Amendment against speech restrictions, on the theory that the prohibited speech was commercial in nature. However, it is unlikely that that action would be in the mainstream of constitutional interpretation in the US, and it is vanishingly unlikely it would be upheld if the commercial speech was also political, such as if the speech self-referentially criticized the government. This is a statement of opinion: non-withstanding the well-established body of case law, I believe that the Supreme Court is wrong and that commercial speech has and deserves full protection under the First Amendment.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > You misunderstand what I'm saying. I did misstate your position, but I still don't see how that position was in what you wrote.
- uriel 17y ago
  > The commercial speech argument is that folks who gather together for commercial activity have the same free speech rights as other folks in other circumstances. That argument doesn't imply anything about stopping other people from saying things. I think the argument is simpler, it is that "Congress shall make no law" actually means Congress shall make no law. If people don't like what the 1st says, they should propose a new amendment, not try to pretend they can ignore what it currently says.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > If people don't like what the 1st says, they should propose a new amendment, not try to pretend they can ignore what it currently says. That ship sailed a long time ago. One interesting thing about 1st amendment interpretation is that actual political speech (which pretty much everyone agrees was the point of the 1st amendment) is significantly more restricted than pornography even though pornography's"lack of restrictions" is justified on the basis that it is political speech....

ErrantX 17y ago

Indeed. I'd support them if the proposal was to take people using their properties for commercial advertising to court to find out is they were allowed to remove it (I suspect they would be told they cant... but you never know). But unilateral rights? jeez.

bendtheblock 17y ago

I don't see why this would make a difference. The only reason it would, is if the tenancy agreement of those private individuals banned them from using their space for commercial reasons. Even then, this would be a civil offence and not a criminal offence.