No, he still would have been arrested. The welfare check was called because the teen’s father called the police after being told that his son had gotten into someone’s SUV. The marijuana element was just a side-note in the police report.

Probably not. It seems like he reserves his most active disgust for women and girls.

Thank you! That’s one of the most interesting things about this, imo. The difference between the upper/middle of the working class and the lower end, and how that played out in 1990s understandings of femininity and womanhood.

Nancy Kerrigan wasn’t a wealthy, well-heeled woman. She was the daughter of a welder.

How do you mean until she got involved with her then husband? She’d been with him since she was fifteen.

Class isn’t a good thing, you know.

No, our disagreement is about whether or not free speech laws in the United States allow people to purchase homophobic, racist etc. outdoor advertising from city councils against the wishes of that council, unlike in Paris. They don’t. (I don’t argue that “viewpoint neutral” has any precise meaning outside of how a…

Your “in other words” wasn’t a representative restatement of that ruling. At all. The comparison wasn’t between pro-LGB-equality speech and anti-LGB speech, it was between anti-USA speech and pro-USA speech. It also was related to what you can stand on the street and say, not what you can purchase city ad space saying.

You haven’t cited SCOTUS saying that punishing homophobic speech but allowing pro-LGBT-equality speech is viewpoint discrimination, actually. (Not that punishing and not hosting are legally equivalent or have the same legal rubrics for neutrality anyway.)

That may not be what you consider viewpoint neutral, but it’s what US courts consider viewpoint neutral. That ruling bans, for example, permitting atheists to advertise on a bus but not Hindus or vice versa, not permitting neither ads against atheists or ads against Hindus.

That isn’t viewpoint-discrimination as US courts define it. Try and buy an ad on the subway reading “black people are lazy”. See if you’re allowed.

Banning “offensive” ads isn’t what the new contract does. Did you read the actual contract terms?

A city council’s contracting is not a law. And you misread if you think I expressed offence.

No, it wouldn’t. The religious aspect of JCDeaux’s contract provision is viewpoint-neutral as that court defined it. It blanket disallows all religious discrimination in ads in their ad space.

As I said, you can say whatever you like in a US city, but you can’t buy ad space for whatever you like. That link is an example of that.

Maybe, but it doesn’t prevent city councils in America from having similar contract provisions with the advertising companies they choose for their public space. They can and many do. You can say whatever you like in a US city, but you can’t buy ad space for whatever you want to say from the city council.

It’s in effect here—you have the right to feel offended that Paris won’t be hosting anymore racist, homophobic or sexist outdoor advertising, but you and people like you don’t have the right to dictate what contract terms the Council of Paris settles on with JCDeaux, their new outdoor advertising company

People choose to buy magazines and what websites to browse etc. Curating public space, especially in a city that prides itself so much on its architecture, is a whole other thing.

I’m not missing your point, you just don’t have a coherent point and the various self-contradictory points you’ve shifted through have been wrong. And, no, women who wear makeup aren’t seen as “less intelligent”—the opposite has been shown to be true. It doesn’t go both ways and, like other forms of discrimination,…

Does there also come a time in a man’s life when makeup is needed? Or is it okay for them not to have unhidden blotchy skin, lighter lashes and brows, and paler lips?