tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31786803.post6367371063780094737..comments2023-05-07T06:57:12.483-05:00Comments on What did Glenn Grothman get wrong this week?: Glenn Grothman: wrong for sticking taxpayers with security for political speakers.Mpetersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18399880071535547324noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31786803.post-84368551075937626282007-12-31T13:53:00.000-06:002007-12-31T13:53:00.000-06:00The Court's been incrementally expanding the discr...The Court's been incrementally expanding the discretion they'll allow local officials. <BR/><BR/>See THOMAS et al. v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT <BR/>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-1249.htm<BR/><BR/>I had a hand in the case, on the losing side.Ben Maselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04522765665902610867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31786803.post-73818754201997579492007-12-30T23:05:00.000-06:002007-12-30T23:05:00.000-06:00Hey Ben,I'm still learning that irony doesn't work...Hey Ben,<BR/><BR/>I'm still learning that irony doesn't work online. I'm actually in favor of paying for their security with tax dollars and agree with the court here. I just thought it was remarkable for Glenn to think so too. ... everything else he says suggests he wants to privatize politics. I'd be willing to bet he'd be opposed to spending tax dollars on security for Anita Hill, say, or as noted, Professor Davis.<BR/><BR/>You did leave out section (a) which reads:<BR/><BR/><I>(a) In order to regulate competing uses of public forums, government may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally, if, inter alia, the permit scheme does not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official, Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 56 , and is not based on the content of the message, see United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 . Pp. 129-130.</I><BR/><BR/>Is there a technical legal construal of "overly broad"?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your note.<BR/>MpMpetersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18399880071535547324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31786803.post-57821493244433789352007-12-30T18:47:00.000-06:002007-12-30T18:47:00.000-06:00Simplistic and wrong. Sticking sponsors risks lett...Simplistic and wrong. Sticking sponsors risks letting the police decide how much given speaker will cost, subject to their own political biases. <BR/><BR/>Already settled by the Suporeme Court, in <A HREF="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/123.html" REL="nofollow"> FORSYTH COUNTY v. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)</A><BR/><BR/><I>The ordinance is facially invalid...<BR/><BR/> (b) An examination of the county's implementation and authoritative constructions of the ordinance demonstrates the absence of the constitutionally required "narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards," Nemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 271 , to guide the county administrator's hand when he sets a permit fee. The decision how much to charge for police protection or administrative time - or even whether to charge at all - is left to the unbridled discretion of the administrator, who is not required to rely on objective standards or provide any explanation for his decision. Pp. 130-133.<BR/><BR/> (c) The ordinance is unconstitutionally content based, because it requires that the administrator, in order to assess accurately the cost [505 U.S. 123, 124] of security for parade participants, must examine the content of the message conveyed, estimate the public response to that content, and judge the number of police necessary to meet that response. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 , distinguished. Pp. 133-136.</I><BR/><BR/>BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joinedBen Maselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04522765665902610867noreply@blogger.com