Kickstarter "Tropes vs Women in Videogames"

[Ack]

Dave, find me a bear so that I can secure its arms. For freedom.

I've already seen what you do with an ape arm. I dare not.

Dave.

[prfsnl_gmr]

So wait, wait. The second amendment doesn't allow me the right to bare arms?

It does grant you the right to bear arms much like the first amendment grants you the right to free speech. That said, both rights certainly have their limitations. Accordingly, and while there is a general right to bear arms, you generally cannot exercise that right inside a federal courthouse, an army base, the DMV, etc. despite the fact that all of those locations a re technically "public" property. (Likewise, you probably will not be allowed to give a stirring speech on ethics in video game journalism in any of those locations.) These reasonable "time, place, and manner" regulations are usually constiutional.

(I will stop there, but I can go into more detail, provide you additional examples, etc. if you would like.)

[Ack]

So wait, wait. The second amendment doesn't allow me the right to bare arms?

It does grant you the right to bear arms much like the first amendment grants you the right to free speech. That said, both rights certainly have their limitations. Accordingly, and while there is a general right to bear arms, you generally cannot exercise that right inside a federal courthouse, an army base, the DMV, etc. despite the fact that all of those locations a re technically "public" property. (Likewise, you probably will not be allowed to give a stirring speech on ethics in video game journalism in any of those locations.) These reasonable "time, place, and manner" regulations are usually constiutional.

(I will stop there, but I can go into more detail, provide you additional examples, etc. if you would like.)

But even if it is a time/place/manner situation, none of those places expressly prohibit me from giving a rousing speech on video game ethics. They may prevent me from doing so loudly, but I could still stand in the hallway and give my speech to another couple of folks.

I mean, seriously, how in the hell do you pass the time in the DMV?

[prfsnl_gmr]

But even if it is a time/place/manner situation, none of those places expressly prohibit me from giving a rousing speech on video game ethics. They may prevent me from doing so loudly, but I could still stand in the hallway and give my speech to another couple of folks.

I mean, seriously, how in the hell do you pass the time in the DMV?

Certainly, it would be unconstiutional for the federal, state, or local government to expressly prohibit you from from giving a speech on ethics in video game journalism at any of those locations. (That would be viewpoint discrimination which is always unconstitutional.) That said, you could be entirely prohibited from speaking at any of those locations. (You probably are not prohibited from engaging in small talk at any of those locations, but a law mandating complete silence at the Post Office or DMV probably would not be unconstitutional.)

[Ack]

But even if it is a time/place/manner situation, none of those places expressly prohibit me from giving a rousing speech on video game ethics. They may prevent me from doing so loudly, but I could still stand in the hallway and give my speech to another couple of folks.

I mean, seriously, how in the hell do you pass the time in the DMV?

Certainly, it would be unconstiutional for the federal, state, or local government to expressly prohibit you from from giving a speech on ethics in video game journalism at any of those locations. (That would be viewpoint discrimination which is always unconstitutional.) That said, you could be entirely prohibited from speaking at any of those locations. (You probably are not prohibited from engaging in small talk at any of those locations, but a law mandating complete silence at the Post Office or DMV probably would not be unconstitutional.)

Interesting. Would a law like that affect the employees at those locations too(outside of official business), or just the people who have to go there for business of some sort?

[prfsnl_gmr]

But even if it is a time/place/manner situation, none of those places expressly prohibit me from giving a rousing speech on video game ethics. They may prevent me from doing so loudly, but I could still stand in the hallway and give my speech to another couple of folks.

I mean, seriously, how in the hell do you pass the time in the DMV?

Certainly, it would be unconstiutional for the federal, state, or local government to expressly prohibit you from from giving a speech on ethics in video game journalism at any of those locations. (That would be viewpoint discrimination which is always unconstitutional.) That said, you could be entirely prohibited from speaking at any of those locations. (You probably are not prohibited from engaging in small talk at any of those locations, but a law mandating complete silence at the Post Office or DMV probably would not be unconstitutional.)

Interesting. Would a law like that affect the employees at those locations too(outside of official business), or just the people who have to go there for business of some sort?

It would depend on how it was drafted, but I don't think that restriction would be unconstitutional if it also restricted all employee communication. (You probably would not have a very effective Court, Post Office, DMV, etc. if all oral communication was prohibited, but that is beside the point.) Likewise, I don't think a law would necessarily be unconstitutional just because it prevented everyone from speaking except court, Post Office, DMV, etc. personnel. (The law probably would not allow them to speak about any subject, and it would probably receive some sort of heightened scrutiny if it was challenged in the courts. That said, I am not sure the courts would overturn it if the government was able to show a compelling basis for maintaining complete silence except for "official business" communications.)

The law could not, however, prevent just certain "groups" of people from speaking (i.e., a law probably could not prohibit every one except registered Democrats from speaking at the Post Office). That would be a discriminatory restriction - likely passed with discriminatory intent - that would discriminate against constitutionally-protected speech.

EDIT: I don't think that any government would ever pass - much less enforce - a complete silence law, but this is an interesting thought experiment.

[MrPopo]

This is reminding me of the lawyer that came in for the company harassment training (at previous jobs it was always just online videos with hilariously over-the-top situations). It's amazing just how much nuance there can be in this sort of thing.

[Ack]

EDIT: I don't think that any government would ever pass - much less enforce - a complete silence law, but this is an interesting thought experiment.

Yeah, sorry, I know it's entirely hypothetical, but I thought it would be really interesting to pick your brain on the topic. I hope nobody minds.

[prfsnl_gmr]

EDIT: I don't think that any government would ever pass - much less enforce - a complete silence law, but this is an interesting thought experiment.

Yeah, sorry, I know it's entirely hypothetical, but I thought it would be really interesting to pick your brain on the topic. I hope nobody minds.

Thanks! I certainly don't mind. I think constitutional law is fascinating, but I am by no means an expert in the field. I did study it for some time, however, and I try to keep up with the Supreme Court's First Amendment decisions.

[marurun]

As a librarian, and a former 7 year ALA member (can't afford it this year), I am very interested in speech law. It directly affects libraries as libraries can, if not carefully managed, end up acting as community censors and gatekeepers, even unwittingly. Though usually deliberately, in the truly troublesome cases.

Essentially, for the government to restrict constitutional rights like those granted by the 1st and 2nd amendment, it must demonstrate a compelling interest. Wiggle words, those. The courts are more lenient of temporary or very specific limits, and generally very wary of broad or general limits. But courts also differ greatly in interpretations.

In fact, a guy I went to college with just had a book published about the Supreme Court. One of the many focuses of the book is on the court's treatment of political speech as it relates to moneyed interests.

http://www.amazon.com/Injustices-Comforting-Comfortable-Afflicting-Afflicted/dp/1568584563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422907317&sr=8-1&keywords=ian+millhiser