--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 9/11/06 6:30:18 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Yes, I mentioned one earlier. Liberals are the first to want to > > censor the mention of a deity in public settings such as school. > > That would be publicly funded schools, i.e., those > funded by the federal government. See the > "establishment" clause of the First Amendment. > > > Liberal judges have been > > known to threaten graduating school children with jail time > > if they so much as mention the name of Christ in a valedictorian > > speech. It happened here, in Galveston, just a few years ago and > > continues to be an issue every year. That is censorship. > > I could have sworn I pointed out to you that this > kind of thing is a conflict between two aspects of > the First Amendment, and that these conflicts are > always very tough. No solution is going to please > both sides. If it leans toward free speech, it leans > toward violating the establishment clause, and vice > versa. > > Cite an instance of liberals advocating censorship > that does *not* involve a conflict of constitutional > rights. > > (CNSNews.com) - A liberal group that monitors conservative media > wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to remove radio talk show > host Rush Limbaugh from the American Forces Radio and Television > Services, formerly known as Armed Forces Radio.
Yup, that fills the bill. But it's really quite rare. The grounds for the request, FWIW, were that Limbaugh was "undermining the military's command structure and endangering U.S. troops" by trivializing the abuse at Abu Ghraib--he suggested, among other things, making bubble-gum cards with the photos of the abuse--and condoning the behavior of the soldiers who committed it. Part of the problem was that American Forces Radio and Television Services at the time was broadcasting *only* conservative commentators, which itself constitutes censorship. Howard Stern, for instance, was refused a place on the service because his content was deemed "inappropriate." The Senate voted *unanimously* to call on the service to provide more balanced public affairs programming, since the service is funded by taxpayers, so this wasn't just a liberal issue. > As for your comment regarding students giving a valedictorian > speech and mentioning a deity whether to give thanks or > whatever, that is not the "establishment of a religion". That > is one persons opinion in their own speech which is > guaranteed under the first amendment. It depends a great deal on the context, and different courts have ruled differently in such cases. It's a terrifically complicated and highly nuanced area of the law. > Do you think the congress is violating the first > amendment when they open each cession of congress > with an invocation? Certainly if they were it would > have been stopped by now. I don't think there's ever been a legal challenge to it, probably because it's so deeply grounded in tradition, and there are more important battles with regard to First Amendment conflicts. I would imagine it's less objectionable than religious references in public school graduation ceremonies, because Congress consists entirely of adults, and they rotate religions. If it were ever challenged legally, though, the courts would have to take the challenge very seriously. It would be interesting to see what their legal reasoning would be, pro or con. I doubt, by the way, that the judge's threat to a student of jail time would have been upheld by a higher court had the student ignored the judge's ruling. I'd like to see a cite to the case, though, to see just what he was ruling *against* and why. > The fact that you would oppose free religious speech > in a forum involving federal tax dollars means you > advocate censorship. To the extent that I would oppose it--and it depends, again, entirely on the context whether I would or not --it means I think the First Amendment's establishment clause trumps the free speech clause in certain circumstances. That's quite different from advocating censorship. > By the way here is the first amendment, Yes, I'm very familiar with it, thanks. <snip> > One can speak about God all he wants on federal property as > long as the government doesn't create a law establishing > that or any other religion. The courts construe the law in question as that which funds the public school system, however. Therefore, if public schools allow certain types of religious speech in certain circumstances, that amounts to putting Congress's stamp of approval on that religious speech via the law funding the public schools, and that violates the establishment clause. But--once again--the *type* of speech and the *circumstances* under which it's delivered are crucially important in determining whether it's a violation. As I said, it's extremely complex and highly nuanced, as well it should be when two fundamental constitutional rights are in conflict. > To advocate a position in > which one can not invoke or talk about a deity, anyplace, is > PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF and that is censorship > of free speech. It would be, yes, but of course nobody has advocated such a thing. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/