I want to note that the situation here isn't actually as the asker presents it. The law they're talking about actually applies specifically to employers, housing providers, and providers of public accomodations, as far as I can tell. While that's still kind of shaky ground 1st amendment wise, there's at least some argument to be made based on general anti-discrimination laws applied to businesses and employers, and maybe based on limitations on "fighting words" and "true threats". However, the ban on specific words and actions makes this pretty questionable, since the court seems to like the standard of "content neutral" speech restrictions, which this very much is not. So basically, it's not actually as unconstitutional as the asker's presentation of it makes it seem, and it could be constitutional if executed differently, but as it is it probably won't hold up very well (though it may be that it wasn't intended to last, but rather meant to be a temporary measure until the political situation regarding immigrants/ICE improves, by NY's standard anywho)
Thanks for MHO!
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Which news sources do you consider legitimate?
I use: Roll Call, Reuters, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Fox, The Hill, Reason, Wall Street Journal
Copy that. I'll use those more.
I'm so ashamed of my hometown for propagating this totalitarian nonsense.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!