Since Miss California honestly gave her opinion on same-sex marriage, it seems that Christians and others opposed to same-sex marriage have been under constant attack. I find it funny (ironic) that people supporting same-sex marriage are always crying out for tolerance. Yet when some one openly voices their opinion against them, than suddenly tolerance is out the door. An LA City College student is suing the college after he began a speech in his public-speaking class opposing same-sex marriage. The instructor wouldn't even allow him to finish. When asked about his grade, the instructor told him to go ask God what his grade should be. The students lawyer believes that colleges are now setting different standards for Christians and non-Christians. Basically non-Christians can say whatever they want; where as Christians must say what makes everyone else happy. The instructor in this situation was clearly wrong. It is an obvious violation of free speech and freedom of religion (even though you don't have to be a Christian to be against same-sex marriage, this student was).
As far as colleges setting different standards, I'm unsure. I personally have not been a victim of this or seen it happen so its hard to say. I do know that the media seems to have these different standards. Anytime anyone publically mentions opposing same-sex marriage they make the 6:00 news and everyone is in uproar. As is the case with Miss California, a person can't give his honest opinion anymore or they may risk losing everything. Donald Trump can pretend her crown was taken away because of "questionable" photos, but its all a lie. Her crown was taken away because she stood up for her beliefs. If she would have simply said she supported same-sex marriage, those photos either would have never been published or they would have been ignored like all the other "questionable" photos of previous beauty queens. It saddens me to see the First Ammendment actually hurting someone in these situations, but as a Christian I am proud that they have stood up for their beliefs and have not been bullied into recanting.
For more on the LA City College law suit visit http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/local/me-speech16
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
"Honked" off!!
I found a very humorous incident that happen recently in Washington state. Apparently some people feel that honking your car horn should be protected under the 1st Amendment. They believe horn honking is a form of speech and they can do it whenever they want for however long. In Everett, Washington, Helen Immelt decided to seek revenge on her neighbor by parking in front of his house and laying on the horn for 10 straight minutes at 5:50 am. The police came, but two hours later she was back at it. She was arrested and convicted of noise violation after a 3-day trail. She appealed to the courts saying the noise violation was "vague, overbroad and interfered with her right to free speech.” On June 8th the judges ruling came down and he disagreed. “Horn honking which is done to annoy or harass others is not speech,” the judge added.
I found this very funny. I had never considered honking my horn a form of speech. Apparently though, Miss Immelt is not alone in her feelings. 10 years ago in Montana a lady tried the same argument. She repeatedly honked her horn as she drove past an RV park that she felt was an eyesore. After repeated trips, she was followed and her license number was turned over to police. The courts ruled what she did was simply disorderly conduct and not an example of free speech protected by the Constitution.
"She was not exercising her right to protest to her government and she was not protesting any allegedly unlawful act by her government or, indeed, by anyone," the unanimous court said. I find this statement at odds. According to this statement it is okay to honk and it will be protected if she is protesting the government or an equivalent. However, if she is just honking to be annoying, it is illegal and not protected under the 1st Amendment. So, what else will the government consider legal under specific situations, but illegal under others. If something is protected under the 1st Amendment is should be protected all the time. As far as honking, I really don't have an opinion if it is or isn't a 'form of speech.' (It's actually rather annoying!) But, I think the government has the right to pick and choose when something is protected or not.
For more on these two storied check out this link:
http://1stam.umn.edu/ Honking woman's free-speech argument falls on deaf ears; Ruling: Being honked off doesn't give right to honk
I found this very funny. I had never considered honking my horn a form of speech. Apparently though, Miss Immelt is not alone in her feelings. 10 years ago in Montana a lady tried the same argument. She repeatedly honked her horn as she drove past an RV park that she felt was an eyesore. After repeated trips, she was followed and her license number was turned over to police. The courts ruled what she did was simply disorderly conduct and not an example of free speech protected by the Constitution.
"She was not exercising her right to protest to her government and she was not protesting any allegedly unlawful act by her government or, indeed, by anyone," the unanimous court said. I find this statement at odds. According to this statement it is okay to honk and it will be protected if she is protesting the government or an equivalent. However, if she is just honking to be annoying, it is illegal and not protected under the 1st Amendment. So, what else will the government consider legal under specific situations, but illegal under others. If something is protected under the 1st Amendment is should be protected all the time. As far as honking, I really don't have an opinion if it is or isn't a 'form of speech.' (It's actually rather annoying!) But, I think the government has the right to pick and choose when something is protected or not.
For more on these two storied check out this link:
http://1stam.umn.edu/ Honking woman's free-speech argument falls on deaf ears; Ruling: Being honked off doesn't give right to honk
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Animal Cruelty
On May 21 of this year, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a ban on depictions of animal cruelty. If passed, these depictions will join the list of things not protected by the First Amendment. Currently the list consists of “fighting words,” defamatory speech, obscenity and child pornography.
Apparently, there is a new fad sweeping the United States. "Crush videos" which depict cruelty to animals has begun to grow rapidly. The government is asking the court to revive a 10 yr old law making that makes it illegal to produce, sell or possess depictions of animal cruelty created for commercial gain. This is not the first time this law has been brought up. It was turned down just last year.
It all sounds pretty good on the surface. I am in no way advocating for the cruelty of animals. I am an animal lover. (I have to be or my sister the vet would kill me! :)) However, as the law stands it is too broad. It does include a clause stating that if the material is for serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value than it will fall outside the law. The judges say that as it stands the bullfighting videos in Spain will be considered illegal.
It seems to me though that by allowing a loop hole for artistic value, then can't anyone argue that they are artists? For that matter, any of the exceptions could easily be argued for.
The challenge to the law was brought forth by a promoter of pit bulls. Apparently he has created a video showing the right AND the wrong way to train pit bulls. The video includes clips of dog fights in Japan where it is illegal. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison for this footage. He appealed claiming his footage could be used for dogfight protesters, educaters and historians. Since the law has laid dormant these past few years "crush videos" have begun to sweep the Internet.
I agree with the basics of this law. However, I think the government should focus on cleaning up cruelty to humans before they focus on animals. What about all the videos of kids beating each other up? or child porn that is out there? If the government can find away to eliminate cruelty to humans, than by all means protect the animals.
For more visit http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21505
Apparently, there is a new fad sweeping the United States. "Crush videos" which depict cruelty to animals has begun to grow rapidly. The government is asking the court to revive a 10 yr old law making that makes it illegal to produce, sell or possess depictions of animal cruelty created for commercial gain. This is not the first time this law has been brought up. It was turned down just last year.
It all sounds pretty good on the surface. I am in no way advocating for the cruelty of animals. I am an animal lover. (I have to be or my sister the vet would kill me! :)) However, as the law stands it is too broad. It does include a clause stating that if the material is for serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value than it will fall outside the law. The judges say that as it stands the bullfighting videos in Spain will be considered illegal.
It seems to me though that by allowing a loop hole for artistic value, then can't anyone argue that they are artists? For that matter, any of the exceptions could easily be argued for.
The challenge to the law was brought forth by a promoter of pit bulls. Apparently he has created a video showing the right AND the wrong way to train pit bulls. The video includes clips of dog fights in Japan where it is illegal. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison for this footage. He appealed claiming his footage could be used for dogfight protesters, educaters and historians. Since the law has laid dormant these past few years "crush videos" have begun to sweep the Internet.
I agree with the basics of this law. However, I think the government should focus on cleaning up cruelty to humans before they focus on animals. What about all the videos of kids beating each other up? or child porn that is out there? If the government can find away to eliminate cruelty to humans, than by all means protect the animals.
For more visit http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21505
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)