President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[frank ryan]

No problem with that.

Not a lawyer but political speech is dicy to navigate.

There is an argument to be made that the Pride isn't political (I believe it is.

This seems like a performative unneeded law.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not a lawyer but political speech is dicy to navigate.

There is an argument to be made that the Pride isn't political (I believe it is.

An easy way to avoid that argument altogether is to just say no to flags in government settings.

This seems like a performative unneeded law.

A performative law dealing with performative gestures.

[Maximus]

doesnt seem performative to the actual people affected.

what are the political messages of a pride flag?

[falafel]

Not a lawyer but political speech is dicy to navigate.

There is an argument to be made that the Pride isn't political (I believe it is.

This seems like a performative unneeded law.

An easy way to avoid that argument altogether is to just say no to flags in government settings.

A performative law dealing with performative gestures.

I think they are probably on solid ground by banning any flag other than a government flag on campus. If its kept to USA, Utah, and UofU flags, it might be okay.

On the other hand, how is a flag in a professor's office that is banned by a state-run university NOT a firs amendment violation?

Crap.

[falafel]

people thinking the pride flag is political is why the pride flag is needed.
but im sure making sure no teachers can ever show support for the demographic with highest suidice rates will work great

I don't think it matters that it is political. In fact, doesn't the fact that it is political make it even more important? Can you imagine a United States where the government could ban political speech??

This may not matter to MAGAts (credit: DH), but the Supreme Court has rejected this very argument:

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010): “Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.”

To the lawyers: sorry for the lack of pin cite, and for doing a bold and italics citation. It was a stylistic choice.

[frank ryan]

An easy way to avoid that argument altogether is to just say no to flags in government settings.



A performative law dealing with performative gestures.

I don't remember hearing a groundswell of concern about the Pride flag being displayed to show support for that community.

The law is unneeded and a bit mean-spirited.

[falafel]

I don't remember hearing a groundswell of concern about the Pride flag being displayed to show support for that community.

The law is unneeded and a bit mean-spirited.

And perhaps unconstitutional!

[falafel]

Here is the actual law if anyone is interested:

https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0077.html

Strong support (62%) from the public. Spencer Cox likes the intent, but doesn't like this bill. He didn't sign it but let it become law because it was veto-proof.

https://www.deseret.com/politics/202...ic-classrooms/

Okay I just read the actual text of this law. I would be interested in the opinions of other lawyers on this site, but I have NO IDEA how this statute could possibly construed as constitutional, either under the Utah or US Constitutions. It flatly approves of some speech (political or personal, there's no distinction) while it simultaneously prevents similar speech. It's one thing to say the "University" can't fly other flags, but completely indefensible to prevent university employees from doing so. An individual's right to freedom of speech does not end when they are employed by the U.S. Government. Imagine Trump and the Rs passing a law tomorrow that says democrats elected to office anywhere in the U.S. do not have any right to freedom of speech. What a ridiculous bill to pass. Good on the Governor for refusing to sign this (although I recognize there was no real jeopardy to him in doing so).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Okay I just read the actual text of this law. I would be interested in the opinions of other lawyers on this site, but I have NO IDEA how this statute could possibly construed as constitutional, either under the Utah or US Constitutions. It flatly approves of some speech (political or personal, there's no distinction) while it simultaneously prevents similar speech. It's one thing to say the "University" can't fly other flags, but completely indefensible to prevent university employees from doing so. An individual's right to freedom of speech does not end when they are employed by the U.S. Government. Imagine Trump and the Rs passing a law tomorrow that says democrats elected to office anywhere in the U.S. do not have any right to freedom of speech. What a ridiculous bill to pass. Good on the Governor for refusing to sign this (although I recognize there was no real jeopardy to him in doing so).

Would you be OK with Trump flags at the post office? In your kids elementary class? At the DMV? Not sure I see how limiting overt political expressions in official government workspaces is a violation of free speech.

[LVAllen]

Okay I just read the actual text of this law. I would be interested in the opinions of other lawyers on this site, but I have NO IDEA how this statute could possibly construed as constitutional, either under the Utah or US Constitutions. It flatly approves of some speech (political or personal, there's no distinction) while it simultaneously prevents similar speech. It's one thing to say the "University" can't fly other flags, but completely indefensible to prevent university employees from doing so. An individual's right to freedom of speech does not end when they are employed by the U.S. Government. Imagine Trump and the Rs passing a law tomorrow that says democrats elected to office anywhere in the U.S. do not have any right to freedom of speech. What a ridiculous bill to pass. Good on the Governor for refusing to sign this (although I recognize there was no real jeopardy to him in doing so).

A K-12 teacher can't display the pride flag. They can display a BYU flag. If the BYU flag was rainbow-colered, they can't display it.

Yeah, this is unconstitutional.

[Maximus]

Would you be OK with Trump flags at the post office? In your kids elementary class? At the DMV? Not sure I see how limiting overt political expressions in official government workspaces is a violation of free speech.

how is it overtly poltiical?

[falafel]

Would you be OK with Trump flags at the post office? In your kids elementary class? At the DMV? Not sure I see how limiting overt political expressions in official government workspaces is a violation of free speech.

So I see you didn't read my post.

The state can limit the UNIVERSITY's speech by saying they can only fly government flags. That's government speech, which isn't protected by the first amendment. I have no problem with this.

The state cannot limit the university EMPLOYEES' speech by saying they can only fly government flags. That's the government limiting an INDIVIDUAL's speech, which is strictly prohibited by the first amendment. That's the part of the law I have an issue with.

This is not an issue of Trump flags at the post office.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So I see you didn't read my post.

The state can limit the UNIVERSITY's speech by saying they can only fly government flags. That's government speech, which isn't protected by the first amendment. I have no problem with this.

The state cannot limit the university EMPLOYEES' speech by saying they can only fly government flags. That's the government limiting an INDIVIDUAL's speech, which is strictly prohibited by the first amendment. That's the part of the law I have an issue with.

I am not following you. They can only fly government flags at their government workplace (with the exception of their personal offices - not sure why that is there). They can do whatever they want at home.

This is not an issue of Trump flags at the post office.

Why not? What's the difference.

[Maximus]

maybe the question shouldbe why do you want laws that marginalize specific demographics, instead of non targeted laws.

Especially with utahs additional marginilzation. utah already has a huge problem with lgbt youth spefically

[falafel]

I am not following you. They can only fly government flags at their government workplace (with the exception of their personal offices - not sure why that is there). They can do whatever they want at home.



Why not? What's the difference.

You really don't see a difference? Expand this law, make it applicable to ALL government employees at their place of work. No flags except government flags (e.g., flags the government approves of, e.g., speech the government approves of). Aren't elected officials government employees? Let's say Congress passes a law that says government employees cannot engage in speech that the government does not like, e.g., approve of. Not only is that a prior restraint issue, how is that not applicable to a member of Congress that is not a member of the ruling party? The republicans pass a law that says democrats are "communists" and therefore cannot exercise political speech in government functions. Trump literally calls democrats "communists" on a daily basis. How is that different? You have already approved the government's restriction of government employees to speech that the government approves of. If the Rs control Congress and the WH, and the SC agrees with you, how is this result not inevitable?

Trump flags the post office is so completely different I'm surprised you don't see it. The Post Office is an official government entity. It is an extension of the US Government. There is no right to freedom of speech for the government. The amendment only protects individuals against government action, not government against government action. Therefore, the Post Office is PROPERLY subject to a law that says the Post Office can only fly government-approved flags. If Trump decided he wanted a Trump flag flown at all US Post Offices and both houses of Congress passed an appropriate bill, you bet your ass there'd be a Trump flag at every US Post Office. Hell, we already have a portrait of the current President at nearly every government building. If that's not an endorsement of the current government (and not a different political leader that Post Office location might prefer), I don't know what is.

The first amendment only protects the government's restriction on an individual's (i.e., non-governmental) speech. Just because an individual is employed by the government doesn't mean they surrender their first amendment rights when they walk into work. That would be absurd. The government could force all government employees to publicly exclaim "DONALD TRUMP IS THE BEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BY FAR, HE HAS DONE THINGS WE NEVER IMAGINED POSSIBLE. IN FACT, WE ALL CAME TO HIM, TEARS IN OUR EYES, AND SAID "SIR, THANK YOU FOR UNILATERALLY, WHICH MEANS WITHOUT HELP FROM ANY OHER PERSON OR ENTITY, SAVING OUR COUNTRY AND DEFEATING THE RADICAL LEFT COMMUINISTS, AND IN FACT SAVING THE UNIVERSE FROM TOTAL DESTRUCTION."

You see what I'm getting at.