Berkley wants to treat Military Recruiters like Porn Dealers

[SirNitram]

Show how the one logically leads to the others, or STFU.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Show how the one logically leads to the others, or STFU.

Logically? In Berkley, accomodations are made for one group to get special advantages in their protests against an organization.

On what grounds could you deny a second group special accomodations to undertake similar protests against a different organization, aside from morality?

[Flagg]

Actually, I think may be perfectly legal. State constitutions are perfectly valid unless they directly contradict the federal one. State constitutions can grant extra rights, they just cannot deny rights given by the federal constitution. If the California state constitution makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, then that's the law of the land.

Federal agencies may be allowed to opt out of that, but I don't see how encouraging citizens to protest against protected groups with special rights (in this case, the Marines) in any way violates the equal protection clause. It's narrowed down to "those who violate the state constitutions ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation". Now, if a bunch of douchebags wanted to protest some gays only organization and Berkeley denied them the same rights, then you might have a case. As long as the group protesting wasn't in violation of the state constitution.

[CmdrWilkens]

Show how the one logically leads to the others, or STFU.

Concept of precedent. If it is legal for a municipality to grant special priveledge to a group based upon the content of their message then it is perfectly legal for another municipality to do the same. In other words if it is legal for Berkeley to sanction this speech then it is ALSO legal for Bumfuck FL to pass an ordinance sanctioning pro-life protesters outside planned parenthood.

Aside from the fact that I don't think this case will stand up on 1st amendment grounds if it does then it becomes precedent elsewhere. Even if the jurisdiction is all the way across the US the decision has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction that such preference in right to speech is permissible then it becomes universally applicable (though the fine point could be argued indefinately).

[Darth Wong]

So the hardcore free-speech argument being trotted out in defense of the Marine recruiting station now ... why didn't it apply to the adult video stores before? Surely, if Berkeley could zone one of them right out of town, they can do it to the other, right?

Remember that the outrage expressed earlier in this thread was about the fact that Berkeley dared ... DARED! to treat a Marine recruiting station the same way it treats adult video stores.

[Glocksman]

It's not so much a free speech argument as it is an equal protection clause one.
Berkeley's city council can pass whatever resolutions they want condemning the USMC and can encourage whatever groups they want to to protest, but they cannot give preferential treatment (the parking space and fee waivers) to Code Pink unless they're willing to give the same treatment to any and all groups.

Equal Protection Clause Explained.

The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right

As far as adult video stores go, if this was Asshole, Alabama and the town council did the same thing to enable 'Friends of the Family' to protest the store, it'd be just as much a violation of the 14th as what Berkeley is doing.

[CmdrWilkens]

So the hardcore free-speech argument being trotted out in defense of the Marine recruiting station now ... why didn't it apply to the adult video stores before? Surely, if Berkeley could zone one of them right out of town, they can do it to the other, right?

Remember that the outrage expressed earlier in this thread was about the fact that Berkeley dared ... DARED! to treat a Marine recruiting station the same way it treats adult video stores.

Yet oddly enough I have stated rather repeatedly, though others may not have, that even if the city has the right to alter its zoning regulations (which I'm not disputing) it is still a bad situaiton overall.

Lets go through the points I've been trying to make:

1) The military, even in a prosperous college town, provides a viable and possible economicaly rewarding career option for virtually every group in as much as it provides, with minimal entrance requirements, salary and benefits above the local and national medians for that respective education level.

2) Allowing protester's special privledge to oppose the Marines is a government sanction of speech and is forbidden under the 1st and 14th.

3) Actually banning, or otherwise utilizing zoning requirements, to restrict the placement of recruiting stations remains a local decision which I think foolish but which I do not dispute the legality of engaging in.

There are two arguments here: Whether the city can impose additional fees and zoning restrictions on armed forces recruiting (which I oppose but have not found illegality with) and Whether the city can sanction the speech of protesters who oppose the recruiting effort.

For argument one it comes down to a matter that the speech argument for adult entertainment usually runs up against practical terms. Precedent in the US holds that adult entertainment, while speech and thus protected, can have harmful effects on minors and thus may be, lawfully, restricted in such a manner as to reduce the likelyhood of minors encountering it. We can argue all day about whether that doctrine is right or wrong (and we would both agree its stupid as a blanket statement) BUT it is the law in the US. Conversely with the Marines it would be a form of corporate speech wherin they have equal right to occupy and diseminate their product/position with other buisnesses. Now I don't know if the proposed, but not passed, zoning restrictions would be considered an unfair restriction on that speech and I frankly will not weigh in on that issue.

[Darth Wong]

There are two arguments here: Whether the city can impose additional fees and zoning restrictions on armed forces recruiting (which I oppose but have not found illegality with) and Whether the city can sanction the speech of protesters who oppose the recruiting effort.

After all these years, you should already know that I don't give a damn about American legal precedents or codes (or even your massively overrated Founding Fathers, for that matter). For me, every time someone brings up an issue of Americans doing things to each other using their laws, it's an issue of ethics. And in ethical principle, there's no difference between having the ability to use zoning laws or any other municipal function such as parking regulations in order to penalize certain kinds of non-residential real-estate use for being undesirable to the community. If you can do it with one, there's no reason why you can't do it with the other.

PS. You keep bringing up your argument that the military is a lucrative career choice for poor people with no education. I honestly don't see how this is relevant to the thread at all. Porn is a lucrative career choice for a young woman with no education too, but that doesn't seem to stop municipalities from trying to zone pornographers out.

[CmdrWilkens]

There are two arguments here: Whether the city can impose additional fees and zoning restrictions on armed forces recruiting (which I oppose but have not found illegality with) and Whether the city can sanction the speech of protesters who oppose the recruiting effort.

After all these years, you should already know that I don't give a damn about American legal precedents or codes (or even your massively overrated Founding Fathers, for that matter). For me, every time someone brings up an issue of Americans doing things to each other using their laws, it's an issue of ethics. And in ethical principle, there's no difference between having the ability to use zoning laws or any other municipal function such as parking regulations in order to penalize certain kinds of non-residential real-estate use for being undesirable to the community. If you can do it with one, there's no reason why you can't do it with the other.

Fine then from a purely principles view does the local government have the right to subvert the needs of the national government? Like as not the national consensus is the need for a large and active volunteer military. In turn this requires active recruitment of new individuals by presenting the options available in a military career. Should a local government have the right to restrict the ability of the federal government to pursue its needs?

Porn doesn't interfere with any national purposes and thus local governments are unhindered in their actions. The military, by contrast, is an almost exclusively national concern for which the neccessarry doctrine of federal supremacy comes in. Either the federal government is free to pursue its objectives, while respecting individual rights, or you suddenly lose the benefits of central government. We tried that experiment once before the current American government and if it wasn't a total disaster it certianly was't functional.

Does this mean that local toes get stepped on? Yes. From an ethical standpoint the question becomes does the injury to the local populace outweigh the benefit to the national populace? Its a very utilitarian viewpoint but from that perspective the federal government, in its role to ensure greatest good for the nation, carries greater positive effects than the ills placed on the local government.

PS. You keep bringing up your argument that the military is a lucrative career choice for poor people with no education. I honestly don't see how this is relevant to the thread at all. Porn is a lucrative career choice for a young woman with no education too, but that doesn't seem to stop municipalities from trying to zone pornographers out.

Actually I've never said poor people with no education. The only current economic status I've point to is that in Berkeley specifically there are a large number of individuals (1 in 5) who live below the poverty line and for whom this would be a great option. If you actually look at the arguments I provided in the first and second big posts that's a review of comparative economics of those with High School Diplomas and Bachelor's Degrees. My argument has been centered around relative earnings potential at differing education levels. The only education point at which the national median begins to break away from the military is with advanced degrees. In contrast what is the median earnings in the adult entertainment buisness? Not just the "shit I can make a lot for do anything" bucks but what the average poor little girl makes getting in to it?

The armed forces are above both the local and national median incomes for those at just the beginnings of their careers. If I were to go back and take a 10 year member who hasn't moved up the education ladder then we are talking about earnings far in excess of both the national and local medians. The point, which you still haven't countered, is that the military offers an economically rewarding career choice for ANY education level short of advanced degrees (and especially for women and minorities). You keep trying to deflect this as "not for a college town" or "porn stars can be well off" or "you are only talking about the poor people." Perhaps this time you could address my core argument that the armed forces pay above the median for bachelor's degrees and high school graduates out the gate both in the local case of Berkeley and the national case.

As to relevance to this thread I'm going back to the reason I made this case in the first place: even if the military doesn't benefit the local economy it is a boon to the individual economy. The whole reason I think this is stupid for Berkeley's part is that it limits viable career options for their citizens based solely on personal distaste.

[Luzifer's right hand]

Certainly mental and physical health and life itself has some worth.
One should compare the pay in an army not to something like the national median but other jobs with a similar high risk of death, maiming and mental health problems. If such jobs like that even exists of course.
I don't know which jobs would fit though maybe racing driver, policeman or prostitute?

[K. A. Pital]

If such jobs like that even exists of course.

Car and especially motorcycle stuntmen, policemen, extreme sports professional participants all share a high risk of death. However, a soldier's risk of death is higher than those IMHO, there's virtually no other job so risky save being a policeman in the same warzone.

[Darth Wong]

Fine then from a purely principles view does the local government have the right to subvert the needs of the national government? Like as not the national consensus is the need for a large and active volunteer military. In turn this requires active recruitment of new individuals by presenting the options available in a military career. Should a local government have the right to restrict the ability of the federal government to pursue its needs?

If you can show that the negative impact of this action is actually seriously impacting the nation's ability to defend itself, I suppose you could make a case of this. But I doubt that. In fact, I don't see why large numbers of military recruiting offices are necessary at all, when the US military spends untold millions on advertisements complete with 1-800 numbers you can call. Your implicit assertion that would-be recruits would have no way to sign up or no exposure to information about the military career option thanks to a lack of nearby recruiting offices seems highly dubious on its face.

Porn doesn't interfere with any national purposes and thus local governments are unhindered in their actions. The military, by contrast, is an almost exclusively national concern for which the neccessarry doctrine of federal supremacy comes in. Either the federal government is free to pursue its objectives, while respecting individual rights, or you suddenly lose the benefits of central government. We tried that experiment once before the current American government and if it wasn't a total disaster it certianly was't functional.

Does this mean that local toes get stepped on? Yes. From an ethical standpoint the question becomes does the injury to the local populace outweigh the benefit to the national populace? Its a very utilitarian viewpoint but from that perspective the federal government, in its role to ensure greatest good for the nation, carries greater positive effects than the ills placed on the local government.

It looks to me like you are simply declaring by personal fiat that the national harm done by this action outweighs any local government interest. I don't see any real evidence to back it up.

Actually I've never said poor people with no education. The only current economic status I've point to is that in Berkeley specifically there are a large number of individuals (1 in 5) who live below the poverty line and for whom this would be a great option.

Sure, if they totally disregard the "danger to life and limb" factor, not to mention the possibility of being forcibly removed from their family and friends for extended periods of time, the fact that they literally sign away some of their civil rights, the fact that they are now on the hook for open-ended future obligations, etc.

But none of this is relevant unless one accepts your premise that a would-be recruit would somehow be stymied by the lack of a nearby recruiting office.

In business, aggressive sales tactics and field sales are not necessary to let would-be customers sign up. They are necessary to drum up sales that would not otherwise come, and often for products that are a hard sell. Products that are in demand require no such tactics; you do understand why there are door-to-door vacuum cleaner and insurance salesmen but not door-to-door alcohol salesmen, right? We both know this, yet you keep acting as though there is this wonderful product that so many people just need to have in their homes, and this nasty government is keeping it from them.

If you actually look at the arguments I provided in the first and second big posts that's a review of comparative economics of those with High School Diplomas and Bachelor's Degrees. My argument has been centered around relative earnings potential at differing education levels. The only education point at which the national median begins to break away from the military is with advanced degrees. In contrast what is the median earnings in the adult entertainment buisness? Not just the "shit I can make a lot for do anything" bucks but what the average poor little girl makes getting in to it?

The armed forces are above both the local and national median incomes for those at just the beginnings of their careers. If I were to go back and take a 10 year member who hasn't moved up the education ladder then we are talking about earnings far in excess of both the national and local medians. The point, which you still haven't countered, is that the military offers an economically rewarding career choice for ANY education level short of advanced degrees (and especially for women and minorities). You keep trying to deflect this as "not for a college town" or "porn stars can be well off" or "you are only talking about the poor people." Perhaps this time you could address my core argument that the armed forces pay above the median for bachelor's degrees and high school graduates out the gate both in the local case of Berkeley and the national case.

Your argument would sound a helluva lot more convincing if you weren't completely ignoring all of the negatives associated with the military, and if its relevance were not contingent upon some unjustified assumptions of yours.

As to relevance to this thread I'm going back to the reason I made this case in the first place: even if the military doesn't benefit the local economy it is a boon to the individual economy. The whole reason I think this is stupid for Berkeley's part is that it limits viable career options for their citizens based solely on personal distaste.

See above. This whole "personal economy" angle of yours is both red-herring and seriously distorted. Economics is not ignorant of the concept of risk, and people who sign up for this career option run a sharply elevated risk of reducing their "personal economy" to absolute zero. Not to mention incurring significant potential future obligations; I don't know how one would put a dollar value on such obligations, but in business, we call those "liabilities" and they are most certainly an important factor.