3947

Eh, I think you’re going to run afoul of the First Amendment if you are limiting what other people can sell in certain venues.

3948

It’s the state fair. You don’t have to give licenses to people to sell there. People are refused all the time at those fairs and some just don’t want to pay which is why you see them set-up shop in the streets.

Some critics were levying assessments against the law based on a description in the Post which made the law sound broader than it actually is.

They already have laws about foreign symbols at these places.

The public buildings law already bans the display of the flags of foreign governments at public buildings unless a foreign dignitary is visiting as an official guest.

3949

If it’s the State, then it’s almost assuredly fine.

Though… I mean… how many hateful icons was the State of New York selling?

Reading more about it just makes it seem like more of a clusterfuck, though not as much as the Post headline which is so inaccurate as to be libelous.

3950

The Supreme Court should strike this down. Selling a confederate flag at a state fair is a far cry from selling porn. Like it or not, the confederate flag is a symbol of speech, and it’s even worse if the state is saying they won’t let you sell it, when they will let you sell any other flag.

Would you be OK if Antifa flag sales were outlawed? What about flags with a Star of David? Why do you want the state defining this?

I feel like we’ve forgotten that the ACLU fought to defend the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, IL.

3951

You don’t have to, but the state can’t use content-based standards to make decisions about licenses. That sort of thing is presumptively unconstitutional.

3952

I mean, not really. They’re actually quite close.

Except they’re just saying the state itself can’t do it. And they want it to apply to the state fair, but it doesn’t or something because New York legislators are apparently lazy and/or stupid.

I feel like you’re going with the Post’s headline instead of the actual article.

Edit: And for the record, it’s fairly possibly unconstitutional, but it’s also just weird that it’s even a bill in the first place.

3953

They don’t sell dildos at state fairs.

3954

That’s not a content based restriction. A dildo doesn’t express a particular viewpoint.

If you only allowed dildos decorated with American flags to be sold, then that would be unconstitutional.

So I suppose NY could ban the sale of all flags from the state fair. But they can’t ban certain flags because they disapprove of the message.

3955

Did you even read what I wrote? Or you know the actual piece that was posted?

The public buildings law already bans the display of the flags of foreign governments at public buildings unless a foreign dignitary is visiting as an official guest.

They already do; it even mentions flags specifically.

3956

That’s different. The government itself is allowed to express a viewpoint. So the government can order itself (ie its employees) to only display certain flags on its own buildings.

But it can’t regulate the speech of non-employees. So for instance, it couldn’t ban the general public from wearing T-shirts with foreign flags when in public buildings. Although it could use a content-neutral approach, and ban all T-shirts.

The state allows the general public to sell things at state fairs. If government employees were running the booths, it would be a different story.

3957

It feels like you didn’t read the piece. This is an amendment to an existing law, the same one that addresses putting foreign government flags on public buildings. What that amendment is designed to to, and what it is trying to address and why they want to add a new chapter is specific to state and local fairs.

It is not true that they have to grant licenses to just everyone at state and local fairs. They do refuse vendors, all the time for a variety of reasons. The Post incorrectly said this would limit local and state vendors, but the law is designed to stop the state itself from selling those symbols, not private vendors… except it’s not designed that way which is why they want to add the chapter. It’s all right there. And the more confusing bit is about venues that receive government funding.

Almost every local venue has a obscenity clause, which is hugely vague and only loosely works anyway… but yeah that’s… content.

3958

There are two parts to the law. The first part prohibits the state from selling confederate flags. That’s fine.

The second part requires the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets to: “Take any measures necessary to prohibit the sale, on the grounds of the state fair and any other fairs that receive government funding, of symbols of hate, as defined [above]”

I don’t know how NY runs its fairs, but if this results in preventing a sale between two private parties then it will be found unconstitutional.

They don’t have to grant licenses to just everyone, true. But denying a license to someone because they are selling confederate flags is legally equivalent to denying a license to someone because they are Muslim. There needs to be a different reason for denying the license.

3959

Oh there is always a different reason. There is no shortage of huge history of people not being able to sell confederate flags at fairs. Now ask dozens of minority groups over the last few hundred years how easy it’s been for them to sell things.

The whole point of that piece is The Post mischaracterized the law and they’re getting pushback for it based on views that don’t actually reflect the reality of the law.

3960

Sure, but now there is a law that seems to endorse not granting licenses to people who sell confederate flags. I was quoting the actual law, not the Post characterization. And that’s going to be used against the state in the inevitable lawsuit filed by racists. It’s easier to discriminate when you don’t announce your plan out loud.

3961

The article posted above is not from The Post. It is from Law and Crime which addresses the article about The Post.

3962

But we also forget the patriotic response

3963

But then you have the State deciding who gets to sell stuff there, based on their speech. That’s almost certainly going to be found in violation of the first amendment.

3964

I hate Illinois Nazis…

3965

I’ll let this piece of learned nothing and forgotten nothingness fester.

3966

I’m a believer in the intrinsic value of diversity, but wat.