Free Speech News

Further off-topic but important

Spread the love

 

On March 4, in a designated “free-speech zone” at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), associate professor of feminist studies …

Never mind what she did. It was crappy, but typical.

Here is a question from the Canadian who writes your news (saves money, okay): In the United States what, exactly, is a “free speech zone”? Unlike most Americans, I have read the United States Constitution (we took it in school in Canada, in Grade Nine).

If I understand correctly, the First Amendment is

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So the “free speech zone” would then be the United States and its territories, possessions, protectorates, and dependencies? Right?

My source says,

The University of California, and American academia as a whole, is long overdue for a 21st century free speech movement. Hopefully this time it will be bipartisan, and will aim from the outset to defend precisely the types of speech its advocates find most abhorrent.

Oh, for heaven’s sakes, people, why don’t you just start living by your own laws?

If I understand the meaning of the First Amendment correctly, no one has the right to stop you from expressing your opinion anywhere as outlined above in a peaceful way. So why not just start doing it? Ostracize the Big Shuddup.

8 Replies to “Further off-topic but important

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    IT only said Congress can’t stop free speech. We don’t have free speech in our parents homes. We can’t sue as kids.
    The better point is WHY did the Yanks prohibit congrees from speech control.
    the purpose was to allow truth to come out in society.
    They simply never imagined institutions becoming the trith tellers and so truth controlers. so no more free speech.
    Free speech is for truth and so this purpose and spirit is a heritage.
    Not actual laws. I say there should not ever of been feminst studies. its just attacks against men in their rights.
    Thats freedom of speech.
    creationists should demand the right to truth and then the spirit of speech freedom.
    Thats the equation that most people would agree with.

  2. 2
    Barb says:

    Robert,

    IT only said Congress can’t stop free speech.

    Congress can’t pass laws against holding an opinion (freedom of speech).

    We don’t have free speech in our parents homes. We can’t sue as kids.

    Try to imagine the insanity that would happen if kids starting suing their parents for, say, not buying them an X-Box for Christmas.

    The better point is WHY did the Yanks prohibit congrees from speech control.
    the purpose was to allow truth to come out in society.

    And to allow everyone to have and voice an opinion, even if that opinion is repulsive (c/f racist hate speech).

    They simply never imagined institutions becoming the trith tellers and so truth controlers. so no more free speech.

    Who, exactly is controlling the truth? Truth exists in the world. Nobody actually controls it; individuals may discover it.

    Not actual laws. I say there should not ever of been feminst studies. its just attacks against men in their rights.

    You’re a misogynist.

    Thats freedom of speech.

    Note that freedom of speech allows you to have an opinion. It does not protect you from the consequences of having that opinion.

    creationists should demand the right to truth and then the spirit of speech freedom.
    Thats the equation that most people would agree with.

    Great. But how do you convince a judge that creationism isn’t a violation of the “separation of church and state” that’s also in the Constitution? Creationism, as its defined, is a religious doctrine. It would be welcome in parochial or religious schools but not in public or private institutions.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb.
    Not sure if you understood me. The purpose was to allow truth to prevail THEREFORE free speech would be allowed including nasty/false speech. A trade off.
    Its no problem demonstrating creationism is as legal as any other idea about origins being taught in schools.
    Creationism just needs more cases and lawyers.
    The point is to stress that the state prohibiting creationism means the state is saying its not the truth and so illegally interfering with religion.
    Otherwise truth in origins would not be the purpose in school. A absurdity.

  4. 4
    Barb says:

    Robert, okay, your first point makes sense. However, creationism is still defined (legally) as a religious belief. How would you re-define it so that it’s not conflicting with the separation of church and state? More cases and more lawyers might help, but you’d have to convince people that creationism doesn’t rely solely on the Bible for its evidence.

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    Simply insist its a opinion on origins. Any connection with religious faith is irrelevant. If they say its a faith and not to be taught then they are saying ones opinion is not to be taught. Its censorship of opinions.
    Further jowever they are stuck. if they forbid the opinion in a class about these subjects then they are saying officially the opinion is wrong.
    Thus its them saying a religious doctrine is wrong which is illegal and unreasonable to everybody.
    Creationists can win the freedom of enquiry contention here.

  6. 6
    Barb says:

    Robert writes,

    Simply insist its a opinion on origins.

    So what makes this opinion valid in classrooms? Everyone has an opinion, but that doesn’t mean that everyone gets equal time in expressing their opinions in school.

    Any connection with religious faith is irrelevant.

    This would be the most difficult hurdle. Creationism relies primarily on the Bible for proof. That’s why it’s considered a religious doctrine. Claiming that this opinion is valid enough to be taught in classrooms opens the door for others to state, “Yeah, well, what about teaching them the Greek mythological legends? Or Babylonian?”

    If they say its a faith and not to be taught then they are saying ones opinion is not to be taught. Its censorship of opinions.

    And, as stated, just because it’s your opinion doesn’t mean that it gets taught in school.

    Further jowever they are stuck. if they forbid the opinion in a class about these subjects then they are saying officially the opinion is wrong.

    Yes, they are. Because of the separation of church and state. Unless it’s a parochial or religious school, in which case creationism might be taught as an alternative to, or alongside with, evolution.

    Thus its them saying a religious doctrine is wrong which is illegal and unreasonable to everybody.

    Creationism is a religious doctrine. Period. You’re not prevented from believing in it, but you can’t teach it in schools.

    Creationists can win the freedom of enquiry contention here.

    Not likely, I’m afraid.

  7. 7
    Robert Byers says:

    Barb
    my confidence is that there is nothing in the constitution banning any options for origins.
    Those, the people through their delegates and the writers,were very protestant people and NEVER would imagine or put in the great constitution a banning of teaching God and genesis for origins. Much less making no future generations make that decision.
    Its absurd to imagine those people thought in any way that the separation concept would affect the teaching of what is true about origins.

    So its impossible for any reading of the constitution to find this present censorship.
    SO it can be beat by better lawyering.

  8. 8
    Barb says:

    Robert,

    my confidence is that there is nothing in the constitution banning any options for origins.

    There isn’t. But you have to get past the first amendment and show that your version of the OoL story doesn’t have religious (or overtly religious) overtones.

    Those, the people through their delegates and the writers,were very protestant people and NEVER would imagine or put in the great constitution a banning of teaching God and genesis for origins. Much less making no future generations make that decision.

    No, but they were astute enough to know what happens when religion and politics mix.

    Its absurd to imagine those people thought in any way that the separation concept would affect the teaching of what is true about origins.

    The separation concept allows for individuals to practice their own religious beliefs, whatever they may be, unhindered. Its purpose is not to establish by judicial fiat a state religion or promote any particular religious group over another.

    So its impossible for any reading of the constitution to find this present censorship.

    No, it’s not impossible. The Constitution does not allow for you to proclaim your religion is better than everyone else’s.

    SO it can be beat by better lawyering.

    We might see this eventually, as more scientific evidence shows evolution is wanting. However, I would also not be surprised to see repeats of the Dover trial in other states.

Leave a Reply