Here are some excerpts from Supreme Court Rulings related to the topic at hand i.e. the zoning of Free Speech to certain areas
Quote:
|
Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.
|
MILLS v. ALABAMA, 384 U.S. 214 (1966)
Quote:
|
In order to secure the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and to prevent distortions of "the market-place of ideas," see Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting), governments generally are prohibited from discriminating among viewpoints on issues [460 U.S. 37, 72] within the realm of protected speech. In this case the Board has infringed the respondents' First Amendment rights by granting exclusive access to an effective channel of communication to the petitioner and denying such access to the respondents. In view of the petitioner's failure to establish even a substantial state interest that is advanced by the exclusive-access policy, the policy must be held to be constitutionally infirm.
|
PERRY ED. ASSN. v. PERRY LOCAL EDUCATORS' ASSN., 460 U.S. 37 (1983)
I should also note that the Supreme Court has upheld lower circuit courts decisions repeatedly such as Brister v. Faulkner, 214 F.3d 675, where students involved with a Texas Green party were found passing out leaflets in
violation of their Universities "Free Speech Zone" policy. The fifth circuit threw out the case against the students outright on first amendment grounds.
(Findlaw is not free for lower court decisions -so no link.)
The bottom line is that Bush's policy is in clear violation of the first amendment. He is blatently overstepping the bounds of the constitution
which guarantees a citizen's right to freedom of expression. Does anyone find it a coincidence that he is quelling dissent against himself?