I Think, Therefore I Blog » First Amendment

See the oppression inherent in the system!

fsherman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:42:23 +0000

A great article from Dana Millbank on a group of conservative preachers holding an anti-gay rally to push the government to shut them down under hate-crime laws. Only nobody shut them down.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Is that what the legislature had in mind?

fsherman — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:13:05 +0000

From the First Amendment Center, a story about a 75 year old businessman using “elder abuse” laws to keep protesters away from his store.

The center also provides this account of a prosecutor demanding information on students whose research indicated the prosecutors’ office sent an innocent man to prison almost three decades ago.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

More salutes

fsherman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:15:33 +0000

Craig salutes the past and present city leaders and adds that the incorporation and the city’s success since wouldn’t have been doable “if we didn’t have the buy-in from every resident.” (there was more, but I mis-posted and lost what I’d typed).
Then a proclamation from Gov. Crist saluting the city.
Now the steering committee that put together this week’s events is up as Craig reads another proclamation, this time the city’s own. The committee includes Deb Thatcher, Lisa Firth, Jim Wood, Lindey Chabot and Jurate Burns.
There’s applause following every announcement and proclamation, of course.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Two Supreme Court decisions I’m not thrilled with

fsherman — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:54:15 +0000

•The court turned down an appeal of a court decision upholding a Tennessee ban on the Confederate flag on students’ clothes. The rationale for the ban was that the school was going through a period of racial tension and the flag just inflamed things.
If that’s true, it’s legitimate … but I’ve read too many accounts of administrators being very free in interpreting this or that piece of clothes as “disruptive.”
•The Supreme Court also turned down an appeal of a Florida court decision that a student could be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
I had thought that was settled back in the 1940s–the pledge can’t be forced–but the Florida position was that since the law allows parents to have their kids exempted, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. I find that daft, but …

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Miscellanea from the Daily News letter pages

fsherman — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:09:58 +0000

•Randy Henning, Mossy Head, on the Santa Rosa County school prayer controversy: “The Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government, not local or state.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that both the First and Fourth amendments are binding on the states (others too, I believe). And this is a good thing, because without the First Amendment, schools really could shut out prayer if they wanted to: No students allowed to say grace, or hold Bible study groups on school property, etc
•Allan Stearns, FWB: “I seriously doubt race is playing a part among those disappointed with the current administration … Race is not the issue. Can’t we agree to disagree without having to resort to the race card?”
Certainly not everyone who’s displeased with Obama is upset about race, but yes, race is definitely an issue: Just look at the racial imagery during the campaign, (Obama Waffles!), Limbaugh’s statement that liberals should find racism as acceptable as homosexuality or the whole birther mess. Sure, they’d have found some crazy rationale why Obama wasn’t a REAL president, just as they did with Clinton and Gore*, but if he’d been as white as McCain, I can’t see “Maybe he’s not a natural-born American!” being the issue.
*Remember when the letters page was always telling us that Clinton wasn’t elected with a majority of all American voters? Or pundits who’d explain that geographically, Bush won a much larger region of the country than Gore, or he won the votes of Real Americans instead of those evil liberals in the big cities (whose votes, the subtext seemed to be, shouldn’t have counted).
•Joe Les Fishback, of Crestview: “The number liberals keep tossing out there, 48 million without healthcare is ridiculous … 20 million people choose big-screen TVs, cell-phones, expensive cars, etc., instead of health care.”
I know this is a standard Republican theme—everyone who wants a government service is a lazy bum—but as I’ve noted in previous posts, a lot of people can’t afford health care and don’t have any of these things either. And trust me, going without cell-phone service isn’t going to bring in enough money to cover your premiums.
•Fishback again: “Racism is a two way street. There is just as much black acism as there is white racism. Liberals just choose to ignore it.”
Ooooh, poor discriminated-against Mr. Fishback. Let’s compare, shall we? White racism against blacks had led to slavery (OK, slavery was as much a cause of racism as a result, but I’m putting it in here), Jim Crow segregation, lynchings, the murder of Civil Rights workers, sundown towns and black people trying to walk out of New Orleans before Katrina getting turned back at gunpoint.
Racism of blacks against whites has generated what horrible consequences exactly?
•Harold Medlin, FWB, on the prayer issue: “If Christians and all God-loving people dont’ draw a line in the sand somewhere, the morals of our country will worsen.”
Yes, because prayer in schools was such a wonderful deterrent to Jim Crow, to treating rape victims like prostitutes, to the beatings and persecutions of gays … Such fine moral times.
I also wonder how many of these pro-prayer people would be screaming if the prayers were, say, to Allah, or to the Blessed Virgin.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Defending the rights of vile people

fsherman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:28:29 +0000

A U.S. Appeals Court has ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church—the people who express the love of God by picketing funerals of gays and soldiers—in a lawsuit, as detailed here. The court ruled that however repellent the views of Westboro and its leader, Fred Phelps, it was still covered by the First Amendment.
I’m in favor of this, overall, though I’m surprised at the Court’s decision a piece one of the protesters posted online claiming that the soldier’s parents taught him “to defy his creator,” “raised him from the devil” and “taught him that God was a liar.” This would seem to fall into the slander category—the court’s argument it was just a hysterical hate-filled rant that couldn’t be taken as a serious statement of fact is one I’d disagree with (hysterical yes, but from these people I see no reason to think it’s an exaggeration of their views).
Still, better to err on the side of more speech than less. Even when the speakers are scum.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Speaking of absurdity

fsherman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:34:41 +0000

According to Senator Tom Coburn’s chief of staff, Michael Coburn, heterosexual porn is actually homosexual porn (courtesy of ThinkProgress):

SCHWARTZ: And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”

Like I said, it’s getting harder and harder to respond to the right wing rationally. So I’ll just let this one stand on its own.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Mixed thoughts

fsherman — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:27 +0000

The First Amendment Center reports on a Dearborn, Mich. decision that a Christian group handing out leaflets at a major Arab/Muslim event must stick to its booth rather than walk the crowd.
Apparently this is the same condition imposed on other religious groups, Christian and Muslim. I can’t quite decide whether this is a reasonable effort to maintain public order or an unreasonable imposition (as described, it doesn’t seem an unreasonable imposition, but that’s what they always say, isn’t it?).

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Poor, persecuted Christians

fsherman — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:34:42 +0000

The American Library Association reports on the case of a Christian group that a)is suing for the right to burn a Wisconsin library’s copy of a book it objects to (Baby Be-Bop by Francesca Lia Block) and b)$120,000 for being “exposed” to the book at a library display.
Newsflash: Books are not kryptonite. Being exposed to it sitting on a shelf is not harmful.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog