Quote (Ghot @ Aug 1 2019 04:10pm)
NO... cause I know you can't. I want you to stop claiming that the 1st Amendment is protecting the language of the signs in the US.... when no one could prove it.
/e Then for good measure you could admit that it is MY FUCKING RIGHT to think w/e I want about a law passed in China.
Courts have reviewed this and found that such ordinances do violate the First Amendment. A good example of this would be
Asian American Business Group v. City of Pamona:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2705315218726752196&q=Asian%20American%20Business%20Group%20v.%20City%20of%20Pomona&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1The City of Pamona passed the following ordinance:
Quote (City of Pamona)
On premises signs of commercial or manufacturing establishments which have advertising copy in foreign alphabetical characters shall devote at least one half of the sign area to advertising copy in English alphabetical characters. Commercial or manufacturing establishments which have on premises signs with foreign alphabetical characters shall also display in Arabic numerals their address in figures not less than three and one half inches in height.
Judge Robert M. Takasugi expressly said that it violated the First Amendment in his ruling:
Quote (Robert M. Takasugi's Ruling)
By requiring one half of the space of a foreign alphabet sign to be devoted to English alphabetical characters, the ordinance regulates the cultural expression of the sign owner. Since the language used is an expression of national origin, culture and ethnicity, regulation of the sign language is a regulation of content.
The court hereby declares that the Ordinance violates the first amendment rights of freedom of speech, is void for vagueness and violates the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment, and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment; and...
This post was edited by Handcuffs on Aug 1 2019 05:34pm