Amendments made to state ban on hate symbols | Information, Sports activities, Jobs

As it turns out, New York’s ban on the sale of hate symbols on state property is not really a ban.

When Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Law A.10729 / S.8298B in December, he signed the law, admitting that it needed to be amended so it would not violate the U.S. Constitution. The new legislation, introduced by Rodneyse Bichotte, D-Brooklyn, removes the word “sale” from legislation and adds language that prohibits anyone from using hate symbols within the meaning of Section 146 of the State Public Buildings Act on state-owned property To attach or attach property.

Bichotte wrote that the purpose of A.962 is to make technical corrections to the laws passed last year and signed by Cuomo in December. In addition to removing the word “sale” from the law, Bichotte added a severability clause, which is a legislative instrument that states that if part of a bill is declared unconstitutional, only part of the bill is unconstitutional. This leaves the rest of the legislation in place.

“This bill would restrict the display of the Confederate flag and other symbols of hatred on or within publicly owned premises.” Bichotte wrote in her legislative justification. “It also shows that New York State will not tolerate racism, exclusion, oppression, and violence when such antagonistic and deeply hurtful symbols are displayed.”

Changes were necessary because the Supreme Court recognized the initial customization rights of individuals and sellers at government trade shows to exercise their initial customization rights to sell such products. Private companies can choose to sell offensive symbols or not, but a government ban on selling offensive, constitutionally protected symbols is against the first amendment. In June 2017, in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Lanham Act’s demeaning clause violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause. It was about the government’s ban on trademark registration “Racially derogatory.”

“Speech that is demeaned on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or similar reason is hateful. However, the proudest boast of our free speech jurisdiction is that we protect the freedom to “express the thought we hate”. “ wrote Judge Samuel Alito in his majority opinion.

Latest news and more in your inbox