degggendorf t1_iunqosy wrote
Reply to comment by southofthetower in Little Compton residents react to town-wide hate-filled mailer with love and solidarity by GhostOpera406
> At a minimum, the Court should confirm that a local government does not establish a government-created forum for private speech by deciding to fly the flag of a foreign country, a private organization, or a movement on its initiative without any formal request. It cannot be disputed that a local government may decide by itself to fly the flag of a foreign country to welcome a foreign dignitary or celebrate the heritage of a portion of the community without creating a forum.
[...]
> Thus, for example, local governments may decide to fly only flags of foreign countries, flags of local non-profit and charitable groups, or flags of local non-profit institutions and sports teams without transforming their flagpoles into public fora.
That ruling affirms a town's right to fly something like the Pride Flag, and confirms that flying one flag doesn't require them to then fly all flags. Is that what you intended to support by posting the link?
[deleted] t1_iunsj19 wrote
[deleted]
degggendorf t1_iunt4ag wrote
> cherry picking the article, that not what it says.
It's a supreme court ruling not an article, and those are direct quotes. It is literally what it says.
> Page 9, section C.
The part that summarizes survey results? I am not sure what relevance the status quo before the ruling has on anything.
But even in that section, it agrees with what I quoted and how I summarized it:
> local governments that fly third-party flags frequently reject requests to do so
[...]
> For example, in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, one city received a request to display the “Thin Blue Line” flag, but the city declined the request due to the flag’s association with opposition to the Black Lives Matter and racial justice movements.
southofthetower t1_iunvriz wrote
>clearly not an article, I misspoke.
degggendorf t1_iuo284l wrote
So what did you intend to communicate by posting this link?
southofthetower t1_iuo3g3a wrote
that this has been discussed at nauseam. and it lists requirements that need to be met bf a third party flag can be flown on state property.
degggendorf t1_iuo3q95 wrote
The way I'm reading it, it affirms that local governments can basically do whatever they want. What's the list of requirements the SC is putting on local gov?
BitterStatus9 t1_iup2vmk wrote
The person you are arguing with is not focused on the facts you are presenting.
degggendorf t1_iup9cwm wrote
I'm not even trying to argue, I'm pulling teeth just trying to get them to explain themselves
BitterStatus9 t1_iupawnw wrote
That is clear to the rest of us. I would have backed quickly away long ago! You tried, though. Your responses made it clearer to me what the SC decision actually says (that is also relevant in this instance).
degggendorf t1_iupiryj wrote
Yeah I have the tendency to drag things out to allow others the space to make fools of themselves...
It's probably neither helpful nor healthy, but I sure enjoy it.
[deleted] t1_iunt0nx wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments