have you even attempted to look up any court cases related to this or are you just soley basing it off your opinion? earlier in this thread you thought free speech only applied to literally talking and not signs

if it was USA, it would be against our right to free speech. there is not a law that states what language we must use in general scenario.

it is the freedom of "speech". not freedom of practicing "English" (which is also protected under free speech).

Again for those late to the party... it's not about WHAT the signs say... it's about what language the signs are in.
1st amendment does protect the signs right to say w/e it wants.

Many have "claimed" it also protects the language the sign is printed in... fine... prove it.



/e And hurry the fuck up... it's almost dinner time.

This post was edited by Ghot on Aug 1 2019 04:55pm

Worth reading this thread y/n?

prove that when it says free speech it doesn't mean 1790's English only and modern words cannot be used

LOL... no.



/e




Would you stop with the.... no you BS. You have to be old enough to be past that.

This post was edited by Ghot on Aug 1 2019 04:57pm

If I prove it what's my prize? Make the hour to draft a brief worth it.

Otherwise I'm not proving the sky is blue

Cities, namely New York City, have attempted to pass laws regarding English signs only to be struck down by the courts.

So you best not run around claiming it then... either.



/e



I know... same with SF. But then the lower courts don't really mean diddly. I cite as evidence... the past two years. :/

This post was edited by Ghot on Aug 1 2019 04:59pm

there is not any attribute to the law that differentiates any aspect of different languages.
there is also not any form of law that protects "english" specifically.

all "language" is protected under free speech. pending the situation, there could also be freedom of press issues.