"The First Amendment's Limit: The Supreme Court's Plaza."

Link to the Article

Key Points:

• The United States Supreme Court does not allow much freedom of speech on their plaza, despite their heavy endorsement of it.
• People have been asked to remove things ranging political from small political buttons to large signs that read "U.S. Gov Allows Police to Illegally Murder and Brutalize African-Americans and Hispanic People", things that would be protected under the First Amendment anywhere else in the country.
• The main reason for this rule is so that the would-be protests outside the building would not influence or sway the opinions of the Supreme Court Justices.
• The excuse that the Justices (specifically Justice Thurgood Marshall) had for not allowing protest is that protesters can still protest on the sidewalks and edges of the plaza.
• The Court doesn't even keep consistency on how it treats speech in the plaza; it allows attorneys and political parties to talk to the media and also allows occasional "commercial or professional filming on the plaza," said Timothy Dolan, deputy chief of the Supreme Court's police force back in 2012. 

Connection to Questions:

• This is a clear violation of the basic First Amendment of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court is not allowing the practice of free speech to the people for, quite frankly, foolish reasons.

Opinion on the Matter:

• Personally, I think this is absolutely ridiculous. The First Amendment more or less states that people are allowed to their own free speech, and that is a right that cannot be infringed upon by the government, which is what is happening here. I think that this needs to change, because if the government can just decide where freedom of speech is allowed or not; well, I think that's somewhat of a characteristic of tyranny, is it not? If they can decide that the plaza is not allowed freedom of speech, then what's stopping them from deciding if anywhere else is not allowed freedom of speech? The excuse that the Justices can be influenced by such a decision is ridiculous as well. This is a serious issue that, in my opinion, needs to be addressed immediately.

Questions:

• What do you think about this rule? Do you think that it should be changed?