I see your point, Frankham, but that court case would set up a precendent where one kind of free speech was protected, and another kind wasn't. You're talking about removing any editorial rights. Freedom of speech goes both ways. Freedom of speech isn't just about what one says verbally, it's about being able to express one's political (and other) thoughts safely.

If said singer can say whatever she wants about Bush's legs, doesn't the proprietor of an establishment have as much right to show THEIR freedom of speech but not having it said on their premises by someone who appears be acting in an official capacity and speaking FOR them? Freedom of speech has never meant that someone HAS to pay for your space and aid you in the effort to express yourself. The New York Times doesn't have to allow just anyone column space in the name of free speech.

I (fortunately) am not forced to listen to Aryan Nation "free speech" -- just because you're free to say it doesn't mean anyone has to listen. If your court case was passed, the Aryan Nation could then sue & argue that their freedom of speech was interfered with when they weren't allowed to give a regular speech to elementary school kids every Tueday at 2pm. After all -- if they want to say it, the school can't stop them AND has to allow them the use of the space in the name of free speech, right?