<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with SupremeCourt and firstamendment</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/SupremeCourt+firstamendment</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'SupremeCourt' and 'firstamendment' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Pleasant Grove City v. Summum</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/76506/Pleasant%2DGrove%2DCity%2Dv%2DSummum</link>
		<description> The previously-&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/59870/Return-Of-The-Mummy&quot;&gt;mentioned&lt;/a&gt; Summums want to &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasant_Grove_City_v._Summum&quot;&gt;place their own monument&lt;/a&gt; in a park which contains the Ten Commandments, making the Supreme Court&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slate.com/id/2204465/pagenum/all/&quot;&gt;heads explode&lt;/a&gt; in a a hilariously weird &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-665.pdf&quot;&gt;oral argument&lt;/a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[pdf]&lt;/sup&gt;: &lt;i&gt;&quot;Scalia: I don&apos;t know what that means. You keep saying it, and I don&apos;t know what it means. [...] Breyer: Suppose that there certain messages that private people had like &quot;eat vitamins&quot;&#8212;and then somebody comes along with a totally different content, &quot;ride the roller coaster,&quot; and they say this part of the park is designed to get healthy children, not put children at risk.&quot;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.slate.com/id/2204465/pagenum/all/&quot;&gt;At issue&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;Pulling a crystalline, cogent rule out of the murk of the court&apos;s First Amendment, public forum, and Establishment Clause doctrine is an act of creation too complicated for mere mortals.&quot; </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2008:site.76506</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:16:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>civilliberties</category>
		<category>civilrights</category>
		<category>constitution</category>
		<category>establishmentclause</category>
		<category>firstamendment</category>
		<category>freespeech</category>
		<category>pleasantgrove</category>
		<category>publicspeech</category>
		<category>religion</category>
		<category>scotus</category>
		<category>speech</category>
		<category>summum</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<dc:creator>Non Prosequitur</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>New Supreme Court Opinions</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/62369/New%2DSupreme%2DCourt%2DOpinions</link>
		<description> A very big day for the Supreme Court.  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-278_All.pdf&quot;&gt;Morse v. Fredrick&lt;/a&gt;, the Court ruled that a school could suspend a child for holding up a &quot;Bong HiTs for Jesus&quot; banner. (Previous post &lt;a title=&quot;See astute and prophetic comments therein from monju_bosatsu and... another user that were unfairly chastised.&quot; href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/54305/The-Limits-of-Free-Speech-in-Schools&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;).  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-157_All.pdf&quot;&gt;Hein v. Freedom from Religion&lt;/a&gt;, the Court held that taxpayers lacked standing to challenged Faith Based Initiatives  (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/54102/Separation-of-church-and-state&quot;&gt;previous&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/50288&quot;&gt;discussions&lt;/a&gt;).  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-219_All.pdf&quot;&gt;Wilke v. Robbins&lt;/a&gt;, the Court held that land owners do not have Bivens claims if the federal government harasses landowners for easements.  In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-969_All.pdf&quot;&gt;FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life&lt;/a&gt;, the Court held that the portion of the campaign finance law which had blackout periods before elections on issue advocacy advertising was an unconstitutional restriction of speech (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/52560&quot;&gt;other&lt;/a&gt;).  This Thursday, the Justices will deliver their last opinions of the term, including &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_6407/&quot;&gt;a death penalty case&lt;/a&gt; and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_908/&quot;&gt;school &lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_915/&quot;&gt;assignment cases&lt;/a&gt;. (Opinions are .pdfs)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.62369</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:15:51 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>bethel</category>
		<category>bethelvfraser</category>
		<category>bivens</category>
		<category>bivensclaims</category>
		<category>BuckleyvValeo</category>
		<category>campaign</category>
		<category>campaignfinance</category>
		<category>campaignfinancereform</category>
		<category>constitution</category>
		<category>constitutional</category>
		<category>court</category>
		<category>deathpenalty</category>
		<category>drugadvocacy</category>
		<category>easements</category>
		<category>establishmentclause</category>
		<category>faithbasedinitiative</category>
		<category>federalgovernment</category>
		<category>finance</category>
		<category>firstamendment</category>
		<category>FlastvCohen</category>
		<category>fraser</category>
		<category>free</category>
		<category>freedomofreligion</category>
		<category>freespeech</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>legal</category>
		<category>McCain-Feingold</category>
		<category>McConnellvFEC</category>
		<category>opinions</category>
		<category>Panetti</category>
		<category>politicalspeech</category>
		<category>schoolassignmentcases</category>
		<category>schooldiscipline</category>
		<category>somanytags</category>
		<category>speech</category>
		<category>standing</category>
		<category>supreme</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<category>tinker</category>
		<category>tinkervdesmoines</category>
		<dc:creator>dios</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The Limits of Free Speech in Schools</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/54305/The%2DLimits%2Dof%2DFree%2DSpeech%2Din%2DSchools</link>
		<description> From the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Starr&quot;&gt;guy&lt;/a&gt; who brought you the Whitewater scandal and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://mediamatters.org/items/200412030011&quot;&gt;impeachment of President Clinton&lt;/a&gt; for lying about oval antics in the Oral Office, a legal push to make the Supreme Court &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/08/27/from-cigars-to-bongs/&quot;&gt;just say no to &quot;Bong Hits 4 Jesus.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; Ken Starr&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JuneauSchoolBoardCertPetitionFINAL20060828.pdf&quot;&gt;petition to the Court [PDF]&lt;/a&gt; makes clear that Starr believes this is no laughing matter, but a chance for the Court to make a landmark ruling that will give school adminstrators the power to limit student speech: &quot;This case presents the Court with a much-needed  opportunity to resolve a sharp conflict among federal courts 
(and to eliminate confusion on the part of school boards, 
administrators, teachers, and students) over whether the First 
Amendment permits regulation of student speech when such 
speech is advocating or making light of illegal substances.&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.54305</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:46:40 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>ACLU</category>
		<category>bong</category>
		<category>civilliberties</category>
		<category>Clinton</category>
		<category>drugs</category>
		<category>FirstAmendment</category>
		<category>freespeech</category>
		<category>GOP</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>marijuana</category>
		<category>pot</category>
		<category>school</category>
		<category>Starr</category>
		<category>SupremeCourt</category>
		<category>Tinker</category>
		<category>Whitewater</category>
		<dc:creator>digaman</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>This Highway Adoped By the Ku Klux Klan</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/38511/This%2DHighway%2DAdoped%2DBy%2Dthe%2DKu%2DKlux%2DKlan</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&amp;amp;slug=Scotus%20Klan%20Highways"&gt;This Highway Adopted By The Ku Klux Klan&lt;/a&gt; The US Supreme Court has declined an appeal by the state of Missouri seeking to reverse an 8th Circuit opinion which allows the Ku Klux Klan to adopt a highway.  Under the controlling ruling of the 8th Circuit, &quot;desire to exclude controversial organizations in order to prevent &apos;road rage&apos; or public backlash on the highways against the adopters&apos; unpopular beliefs is simply not a legitimate governmental interest that would support the enactment of speech-abridging regulations.&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.38511</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:42:58 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>firstamendment</category>
		<category>kkk</category>
		<category>kukluxklan</category>
		<category>scotus</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<dc:creator>expriest</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


