Background, as taken from the oral argument: “Minnesota’s statute bans all conventional political expression on apparel to prevent a smaller class of material that can already be regulated under other election statutes. Shirts saying AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, Moveon.cor — Moveon.org — excuse me — and countless other examples are prohibited. Since a vast amount of the banned material is legitimate speech and the statute has plain -a few plainly justified applications, it is overbroad and unconstitutional.”
From the transcript:
JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?
MR. ROGAN: An NRA shirt? Today, in Minnesota, no, it would not, Your Honor. I think that that’s a clear indication — and I think what you’re getting at, Your Honor –
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, I — I — I think that that could be viewed as political, that that — that would be — that would be –
JUSTICE ALITO: How about the First Amendment?
MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don’t -I don’t think the First Amendment. And, Your Honor, I –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No — no what, that it would be covered or wouldn’t be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: It would be allowed.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It would be?
MR. ROGAN: It would be. And — and I think the — I understand the — the idea, and I’ve — I’ve — there are obviously a lot of examples that — that have been bandied about here –
Go read; it’s pretty funny watching Mr. Rogan trying to defend his position that apparently some amendments are more equal than others.