Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Man can't name filly 'Sally Hemings'
ESPN ^ | August 7, 2007 | Associated Press

Posted on 08/07/2007 12:57:59 PM PDT by Trust but Verify

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last
To: darkwing104
I bet "Hillary" wouldn't get approved either...

Why would you want to do that to a horse?

51 posted on 08/07/2007 6:58:18 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
In short, because he has spent three years insisting he has a constitutional right to name his horse 'Sally Hemings' and that no other name will do, Mr. Redmond now finds himself, like the songster of the 70s, having 'been through the desert on a horse with no name,"' Batchelder wrote.

So, the Judicial system is 'an ocean with its life underground and the perfect disguise above...'

Thought so, just checking.

52 posted on 08/07/2007 8:29:14 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

“It feels good to be out of the rain”
Duh...
One can’t be both for and against established and legal traditions.
Pick a side.


53 posted on 08/07/2007 8:37:24 PM PDT by sarasmom (Hunter-Thompson 2008 . It satisfies the senses on multidimensional levels .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
(I don't remember "Duh" in the lyric.Actually I was referring to the sharks, scavengers, and bottom feeders in judicial waters...

One can’t be both for and against established and legal traditions. Pick a side.

While I do not have a horse in this race, so to speak, I can see some rules regarding naming horses.

For instance, in the heat of commentary, some horse names are going to be either humorously or offensively obscene, depending on the listener.

If an owner whose husband was known as 'Dick' wanted to name her horse 'Big Dick', and one imagines the commentary during the race, regardless of how well the horse runs...it becomes inherently obvious that some control may be needed if not self imposed by the owners... Ditto with names like "Mike Hunt".

Other names may be offensive for other reasons.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to anticipate who is going to be offended by what, sometimes, so the naming rules become an attempt to pre-empt the problem.

The jockey club is a private organization. The use of guidelines which protect the organization from presenting a deleterious or less than respectable image by the organization within its venues should be prefectly permissable.

Because you have a right to free speech, does not preclude private individuals or organiations from restricting that speech within their private venues.

You want to register your horse with them, you go by their guidelines. If you don't like the established guidelines start your own club and write your own, or work within the club to change theirs.

There are reasons that many established traditions have withstood the test of time, and they should never be lightly be tampered with.

54 posted on 08/07/2007 9:20:27 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
... to race at a public track...

It's a private track, open to the public. There's a difference. Here's a personal example: I work for a private company (no publicly traded stock). For a few years after 9/11 I had a sign, that I made myself, on my work bench that said "I SLAM ISLAM". Like I said, it had been here for at least 3 years. One day the boss/owner of the company asked me to take it down. I did, without protest. His reason was that he was afraid someone might see it and be offended. This is a small company, 15 employees and most of them are related to the family that owns this company. We are all Protestant and Catholic. We get few visitors as we are a small business electronics company that builds primarily stuff under government contracts, US and foreign. We hardly ever even see a "customer". Just build, test, ship the product and get the check. Now I could have gone on about my "free speech rights" etc, but this is not my company, and he has every right to tell me to take down my "political sign", because it's HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY, even though he agreed with my message!

55 posted on 08/08/2007 5:38:41 AM PDT by Red Badger (All I know about Minnesota, I learned from Garrison Keilor.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The Constitution is meant to put limits on government, not people........

All people living in the USA are 'limited' by our supreme "Law of the Land".

You just agreed that to race at a public track, the jockey club could [constitutionally speaking] limit what he 'calls' his horse. - You can't have it both ways.

It's a private track, open to the public. There's a difference.

Fine. - We agree then, that [constitutionally speaking] at a private track, open to the public, racehorses names can be limited.
Thus, - the Constitution puts limits on people, as well as on governments.

56 posted on 08/08/2007 8:09:12 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

It really has nothing to do with the Constitution. Government is not involved, only the private sector and how they chose to allow or disallow whatever. The primary underlying reason is money. They don’t want to “offend” any current or potential “customers” by having a horse named something that would be considered “offensive” or disrespectful. The “market place” puts its own restrictions on things outside of the purview of any government constitution.

Now if the government (of the city, county, state, or federal) had made a law, ordinance etc. that prevented you from exercising that “freedom” to name your horse, cat, dog or car, something (they, government bureaucrats, etc.) deemed “offensive” THEN I would have a “figantice, hugh and series” problem with it!


57 posted on 08/08/2007 8:19:39 AM PDT by Red Badger (All I know about Minnesota, I learned from Garrison Keilor.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Red Badger:
The Constitution is meant to put limits on government, not people........

All people living in the USA are 'limited' by our supreme "Law of the Land".

- We agree then, that [constitutionally speaking] at a private track, open to the public, racehorses names can be limited.
Thus, - the Constitution puts limits on people, as well as on governments.

It really has nothing to do with the Constitution. Government is not involved, only the private sector and how they chose to allow or disallow whatever.

You really think that "the private sector" can ignore our Constitutional freedoms, our Law of the Land?

The primary underlying reason is money. They don't want to 'offend' any current or potential 'customers' by having a horse named something that would be considered 'offensive' or disrespectful. The 'market place' puts its own restrictions on things outside of the purview of any government constitution.

Sure it does. But the marketplace itself is restricted by our Law of the Land, by our freedoms as per the Bill of Rights.

Now if the government (of the city, county, state, or federal) had made a law, ordinance etc. that prevented you from exercising that 'freedom' to name your horse, cat, dog or car, something (they, government bureaucrats, etc.) deemed 'offensive' THEN I would have a 'figantice, hugh and series' problem with it!

The jockey club [constitutionally speaking] can prevent you from racing a horse with an offensive name at a private track, open to the public.
--- Learn to live with that fact.

58 posted on 08/08/2007 8:38:02 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The jockey club [constitutionally speaking] can prevent you from racing a horse with an offensive name at a private track, open to the public.

I have absolutely NO problem with it. It's a private organization and has its own rules. Any member is free to leave if they do not agree with those rules and start their own jockey club where you can name horses Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever suits your fancy. If the public (ie, marketplace) is in agreement with you and you practices, you will make money, the primary goal..........

59 posted on 08/08/2007 8:43:40 AM PDT by Red Badger (All I know about Minnesota, I learned from Garrison Keilor.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Red Badger:
The Constitution is meant to put limits on government, not people........

All people living in the USA are 'limited' by our supreme "Law of the Land".
Thus, - the Constitution puts limits on people, as well as on governments.

You really think that "the private sector" can ignore our Constitutional freedoms, our Law of the Land?
The marketplace itself is restricted by our Law of the Land, by our freedoms as per the Bill of Rights.

Any member is free --- to start their own jockey club where you can name horses Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever suits your fancy.

Do you really think a State or local government could or would [constitutionally speaking] license a racetrack that allowed gambling on horses named Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever offensive name suits your fancy?

Dream on.

60 posted on 08/08/2007 9:02:29 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Do you really think a State or local government could or would [constitutionally speaking] license a racetrack that allowed gambling on horses named Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever offensive name suits your fancy?

They would deny the license on some other constitutionally solid ground, but they would never admit to denying the license over a "free speech" issue.......

61 posted on 08/08/2007 10:04:30 AM PDT by Red Badger (All I know about Minnesota, I learned from Garrison Keilor.............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
What say ye?

I say he can name the horse whatever he likes, so long as he doesn't want it to be a part of the Jockey Club. :-)

No first amendment issue here at all that I can see, rather an issue of whether a private organization can set its own reasonable rules.

MM (in TX)

62 posted on 08/08/2007 10:08:24 AM PDT by MississippiMan (Behold now behemoth...he moves his tail like a cedar. Job 40:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify

This is bull.

Totally politically motivated.

I’ll bet they’d let him name one Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush.


63 posted on 08/08/2007 10:10:34 AM PDT by bannie (The Good Guys cannot win when they're the only ones to play by the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan; Red Badger
Do you really think a State or local government could or would [constitutionally speaking] license a racetrack that allowed gambling on horses named Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever offensive name suits your fancy?

Red Badger:
They would deny the license on some other constitutionally solid ground, but they would never admit to denying the license over a 'free speech' issue.......

No first amendment issue here at all that I can see, rather an issue of whether a private organization can set its own reasonable rules.
MM (in TX)

Its not 'reasonable' for racetracks to allow objectionable names for horses. - 'Fighting words' ordinances can be applied [constitutionally speaking] to such acts.

Regulation of Fighting Words

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm

64 posted on 08/08/2007 12:57:01 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-64 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson