Speaking of Judge Ho (and his speaking for us), perhaps Judge Ho (and the other judges who are abusing their positions on courts to censor speech at universities) should re-think their efforts to unconstitutionally deprive Americans of our freedom of speech (and even our sovereignty). They could start by re-reading Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
"Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular" means "used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker." The public retaliation of judges against students and educational institutions "interferes with the 'open marketplace' of ideas protected by the First Amendment."
In our "republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices" is "essential." When we speak regarding public issues or public servants, we speak as sovereigns, and, generally, it is not the place of any public servant to dictate who may speak or about what. "The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it." "When Government seeks" to "command where a person may get his or her information" it "uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
“Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “[T]he First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers.” “The First Amendment” does “not permit” making any “categorical distinctions based on” the “identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.”
Speaking of Judge Ho (and his speaking for us), perhaps Judge Ho (and the other judges who are abusing their positions on courts to censor speech at universities) should re-think their efforts to unconstitutionally deprive Americans of our freedom of speech (and even our sovereignty). They could start by re-reading Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
"Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular" means "used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker." The public retaliation of judges against students and educational institutions "interferes with the 'open marketplace' of ideas protected by the First Amendment."
In our "republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices" is "essential." When we speak regarding public issues or public servants, we speak as sovereigns, and, generally, it is not the place of any public servant to dictate who may speak or about what. "The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it." "When Government seeks" to "command where a person may get his or her information" it "uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
“Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “[T]he First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers.” “The First Amendment” does “not permit” making any “categorical distinctions based on” the “identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.”