(Untitled)

[kazzman]

Methinks this hair's simply too fine to split:

"Under the First Amendment, a system of prior restraint is not presumptively unconstitutional but comes before the court 'bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity'." JJR Inc. v. City of Seattle, 126 Wn.2d 1, 6 n.4 (citation omitted

Comments

[seckzee]

huh?

[vyncentvega]

Can you put that in lay-speak?

With how I think I'm interpreting it, those look exactly the same. X isn't presumed to be unconstitutional, but when it comes before the court there's a heavy presumption against it being constitutional?

[wealhtheow]

Reads like the court's giving the government more wiggle room under the latter.

[kazzman]

Well, it's the state supreme court interpreting U.S. Supreme Court precedent. I think you're right that that's how they're reading it, but I see no basis for doing so. State constitution is more protective against prior restraints.

[dmsuperwoman]

So is the court calling it "kinda sorta unconstitutional" (under the right circumstances, of course)?

[cupkate]

It might be the time, exercise or lack of food, but I actually got dizzy trying to read that.