Redlyne Racer
03-07-2005, 04:28 AM
As a general rule, the US Constitution mandates that when the government maintains a "public forum" the government cannot discriminate in which viewpoints are presented. See, e.g., Ark. Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998).
"[I]t is not history or tradition, but the government’s own acquiescence in the use of the property as a forum for expressive activity that tells us that such activity is compatible with the uses to which the place is normally put.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 817 (1985) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Contreras seems to be using another forum not just as a pulpit for the expression of his personal views or to vent his hostility at those he imagines have caused his current predicament, but also as a venue where he actively solicits public input relevant to the formation and implementation of government policy. The problem, as we know, is that most of the brighter lights have been banned from participation in that forum, resulting in a purposefully skewed and very much dimmer level of input.
If Contreras is going to continue to requisition and utilize private resources for public purposes, is he not violating the First Amendment rights of those who might disagree with his short-sighted and ineffective policies? AC might benefit from a little shopping trip at the marketplace of ideas. Perhaps a class action against Contreras and all concerned is warranted. All persons who have had their constitutional rights trampled in this fashion ought to be compensated.
See generally, "Needling the Thread: A Moderator’s Guide to Freedom of Speech Limitations on Government Sponsored Web-Based Threaded Discussions." http://www.smu.edu/csr/articles/2004/Winter/Weber.pdf
"[I]t is not history or tradition, but the government’s own acquiescence in the use of the property as a forum for expressive activity that tells us that such activity is compatible with the uses to which the place is normally put.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 817 (1985) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Contreras seems to be using another forum not just as a pulpit for the expression of his personal views or to vent his hostility at those he imagines have caused his current predicament, but also as a venue where he actively solicits public input relevant to the formation and implementation of government policy. The problem, as we know, is that most of the brighter lights have been banned from participation in that forum, resulting in a purposefully skewed and very much dimmer level of input.
If Contreras is going to continue to requisition and utilize private resources for public purposes, is he not violating the First Amendment rights of those who might disagree with his short-sighted and ineffective policies? AC might benefit from a little shopping trip at the marketplace of ideas. Perhaps a class action against Contreras and all concerned is warranted. All persons who have had their constitutional rights trampled in this fashion ought to be compensated.
See generally, "Needling the Thread: A Moderator’s Guide to Freedom of Speech Limitations on Government Sponsored Web-Based Threaded Discussions." http://www.smu.edu/csr/articles/2004/Winter/Weber.pdf