You know, the Supreme Court has "waffled" on the rights of free speech on privately owned property since the 40s. Look up some of their rulings and you don't have a clear consensus...
The Supreme Court has ruled in some cases that privately owned property owners cannot restrict the free speech of citizens when that property exists solely for the purpose of public commerce and trade.
I'd say that pretty much characterizes Volnation...
Nevertheless, I certainly have misunderstood the rights to free speech, but after reading a summary of Supreme Court cases concerning where free speech is allowed and disallowed by private property owners--I'm more confused than ever. And, it seems that no one really knows until it is challenged in court. :salute:
It is actually simpler than you are making it seem, but far more complicated than most believe who attempt to interpret this run-on sentence: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In this case, many are making the argument that Sousa is a government employee. That appears to have merit, and if so, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that "First Amendment protection does not exist [for public employees] unless the expression is about public concern, and even then, the employee can be disciplined or fired if the government can show, on balance, that the efficient operation of the office justified the action."
(see: Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 3rd by Chemerinsky).
The key here is that the band performing, while important to some on here, isn't likely of great public concern, no matter how much people here freak out about it. This is more reserved for the hypothetical situation where Sousa finds Cheek spending school funds to hire prostitutes, so Sousa speaks out and is fired.
To your other points, especially about message boards, I think the evaluation is much simpler. If the property is private, such as a message board that is not a public entity, it is clear that there is no right to use that private property for your own speech.
Because it is private property, the Constitution does not apply.
It is important to remember that there are categories of speech that are totally unprotected or less-protected regardless of where you do them. Those include:
1)incitement of illegal activity,
2)fighting words, and
3)obscenity
But this is all a general discussion and I am sure I have taken anyone who is still reading to the end of their attention span.
