free speech takes a hit

[ArlJim78]

don't see any problem with it at all really.

this guy is free to take his message to the people most anywhere really.
in this case there isn't even a message that he was trying to express, it was merely a stunt.

that someone at the school thought it was inappropriate for a school sponsored function seems rational.

I don't see the threat to free speech coming from this.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

don't see any problem with it at all really.

this guy is free to take his message to the people most anywhere really.
in this case there isn't even a message that he was trying to express, it was merely a stunt.

that someone at the school thought it was inappropriate for a school sponsored function seems rational.

I don't see the threat to free speech coming from this.

I suspect if the banner read, "Clap Hands For Jesus", it would have been fine...and therein lies the problem! I guess requesting Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit at the prom would be a no no as well?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I suspect if the banner read, "Clap Hands For Jesus", it would have been fine...and therein lies the problem! I guess requesting Jefferson Airplane's White Rabbit at the prom would be a no no as well?

I'm not sure if that is even allowed these days, I think that would also not be allowed because of possible insensitivity to other religious groups.

Just seems kinda silly that this issue took up the time of the supreme court.

[Downthestretch55]

Though I don't advocate drug use, it seems the issue was that this kid wasn't on "school property" but was at a "school sanctioned event".
I wonder what the ruling would have been if the banner read "waterboarding for Jesus".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...734501,00.html

[Downthestretch55]

I'll add this. I find this decision today by the Supreme court to be of much greater concern, as it clearly is in violation of the "establishment clause" in the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I'll add this. I find this decision today by the Supreme court to be of much greater concern, as it clearly is in violation of the "establishment clause" in the Constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

I agree DTS...I can just imagine how many federal dollars Bush will send to Wiccan food banks...lol! Seriously though, this is a blatant disregard of the Constitution and another step toward a right-wing Christian theocracy.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree DTS...I can just imagine how many federal dollars Bush will send to Wiccan food banks...lol! Seriously though, this is a blatant disregard of the Constitution and another step toward a right-wing Christian theocracy.

Somerfrost,
Sad but true.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree DTS...I can just imagine how many federal dollars Bush will send to Wiccan food banks...lol! Seriously though, this is a blatant disregard of the Constitution and another step toward a right-wing Christian theocracy.

the executive order that set up this initiative forbids this kind of discrimination.

"(c) No organization should be discriminated against on the basis of religion or religious belief in the administration or distribution of Federal financial assistance under social service programs; "

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm not sure if that is even allowed these days, I think that would also not be allowed because of possible insensitivity to other religious groups.

Just seems kinda silly that this issue took up the time of the supreme court.

the supreme court chooses which cases to hear, so they evidently felt it was worth their time.

no, it may not be the best example of rights being trampled--but it's one of several rulings lately that gives me and others pause. and of course many feel that any chipping away of rights weakens the constitution. i agree. altho most would say that what the boy did was silly, or inane, or somehow promoted drug use ( i wouldn't go that far, i think he did it to get attention, and it worked), and that they found it offensive (have to wonder, what if it had said bong hits for bozo the clown?) it is his right to express himself--whether his stance is popular or not. and the constitution is designed to protect the unpopular view.
it kills me whenever people say majority rules. it does NOT rule. the constitution was written to protect the minority, as majority rule can quickly become mob rule.