I would imagine this ordinance probably would be upheld as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of free speech.
Well, I'm not certain that it would even be considered speech under the 1st Amendment. The seminal flag burning case stated that "[t]he First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of 'speech,' but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. While we have rejected 'the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled `speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,' United States v. O'Brien, supra, at 376, we have acknowledged that conduct may be 'sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,'" Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) Based upon the factors listed thereafter in the case I'm not sure the conduct would reach the level required for speech. If however, it were determined speech the question would then be "whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 403 (1989); see alsoUnited States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).
The key issues would be that it is likely not even considered speech and if it is speech is not prohibited because of the State is attempting to suppress speech but rather the ordinance is for safety purposes. Similar to the fact that while burning a flag may be protected free speech and a law prohibiting burning flags would be a violation of the 1st Amendment a law that prohibits burning flags in a public building (while having no prohibition against burning flags in other places) would not be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Partially because as you stated time, place, manner restrictions but also largely because the law is not to suppress speech but rather for public safety concerns.
If the NHL and the board of governors said it was illegal to wear hats in NHL sanctioned games, you better believe NHL patrons would get arrested. That doesn't mean the NHL "owns" the police, it means the police are enforcing the laws.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't get arrested (as police enforce laws and ordinances not an organization's code of conduct). They could be removed from the premises probably but the police would have absolutely no authority to arrest them for violating NHL rules unless there was a city, county, state, federal law/statute/ordinance that they were also violating and that officer was an agent of the entity law/statute/ordinance.
It always amazes me how many Americans don't have a clue what kind of political system we have. Hell most teachers think we are a democracy and we aren't. Idiots
It really is amazing. You would think that the Pledge of Allegiance would help "and to the republic for which it stands" (emphasis added) - - or perhaps Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (emphasis added) - - and while sadly it is rarely taught in public schools today all throughout the Federalist Papers, especially Federalist No. 10.
We could have lost this badly to a team we detest or would affect the standings
I can only hope this serves as the wake-up call some are claiming it was.
I gotta agree, and ultimately a loss is a loss points wise. As much as this game hurt to watch I would rather a 10-3 loss that might wake the players up than a 3-2 loss where the team might go along like everything is fine and chalk it up to Dats being gone and having a 3rd string goalie in. At least this has the potential to shake them up.
Posted by Frozen-Man
on 18 February 2011 - 06:10 PM
he's still likely to get into the 40 point area, which is what Filppula gets and no one rips him for his $3 mil cap hit.
But Flip offers a lot more in areas other than pure offense that help justify his salary. (FYI however, I think Huds has played great lately and the last month and a half has really earned his contract).
Posted by Frozen-Man
on 28 December 2010 - 01:42 PM
My problem is he barely won this game after losing two before it, and people act like he pulled off the performance of a lifetime.
First off, seeing as it was a completion of something that only 9 other players in last 93 years have done, yeah it was the performance of a lifetime. Oh yeah and he stopped 46 of 49 shots for a sv% of 93.9% - yeah pretty good game. Not to mention a few other little things like only allowing 1-7 pp to result in a goal.
The game went to overtime because of his "amazing performance". He let in two goals he should have had, potentially 3.
Yeah and he did let in about 10 shots that should have been goals but he managed to stop them. Seriously you are complaining that 7 power plays and and 49 shots resulted in 3 goals. You can say Ozzy hasn't played well lately but you are just completely insane if you are trying to argue that he wasn't incredible last night.
This is with Lidstrom having an amazing night.
Yeah and the rest of the team playing very poorly and giving up 49 shots. Additionally, Lids may have played great but they were without Datsyuk, Cleary, Raffy (and to a much lesser degree Modano). To say Lids had a great game and therefore it should have been easy for the team to win is silly. They were without their one player mentioned as a Hart contender this year, their hottest goal scorer (maybe tied with Mule) and their 2nd best Dman. But yeah Lids was great so it must have been an easy win.
Anyway, awesome game by Ozzy, incredible achivement, and hope he continues to play like that the rest of the season.
Posted by Frozen-Man
on 30 September 2010 - 02:47 PM
Agree, if you have the money and can afford it, go for it. Get to watch games every night. Do you have NHL Network? The only annoying thing is the occasional game on Center Ice gets blacked out if they are showing it on NHLnet.
I can't afford it personally, but my dad ordered it for my parents house, its always nice whenever I'm visiting, if I had the extra scratch, I'd get it. As for now, I have to settle for the atrocious streams.
Yeah, I love it. I do have NHL Network which I enjoy as well. Really the only downside is when a game is blacked out because it is on VS or NBC and you don't get Kenny and Mickey.
The way I look at it now is there are 2 types of powerforwards, the traditional powerforward and the new age power forward. Guys like Franzen could be counted as new age power forwards. Basically they use their body and size to protect the puck, they hit but not all that often and they don't fight. Not all that rare.
I agree the term has evolved, and sadly there are very few traditional power forwards. There is not much better than watching a guy like Shanny who could score a beautiful goal and then turn around a few minutes latter and pummel a guy. I wonder if some of the reason for the change (in addition to the fact that players in general are just getting bigger) is that coaches aren't wanting their 30 goal scores to spend that much time in the penalty box.