Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lukster on June 25, 2006, 08:01:59 PM
-
No surprise which side of this the so called ACLU stands.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17034
-
Because they only stand on the side of the civil liberties of minorities or the issues they approve of.
I believe free speech trumps the so called but NOT defined in the constitution "Seperation of chuirch and state"
-
Very thorny issue here and the concept of "free speech" vs the fact that she was using the school gathering and equipment as a conduit for it.
On one hand it's a bit funny as that school would likely have fought tooth and nail to avoid having a book restricted on the basis of religious objection to preserve the freedom of the students to have access to it, foul language and "adult" concepts and all.
-
This has nothing to do with free speech. She can say whatever she wants. Likewise, the school has every right to un-invite a speaker if the speaker's message isn't in line with policy. So she can talk about religion all she wants, just don't expect the school to give her a stage to do it on.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
So she can talk about religion all she wants, just don't expect the school to give her a stage to do it on.
When a preacher stands on the courthouse steps and preaches to a gathering, should that be disallowed because he is using public facilities for a sermon?
Perhaps a more tolerant society would allow for someone to speak their personal religious view, even in a public forum.
-
"We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that," Hoffman said.
Sounds like it was the school's decision and McComb broke their established rules. One would expect that a valedictorian would be aware of the school's policy. She obviously decided to challenge the rule, one that the 9th Circuit Court has upheld. She lost.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Perhaps a more tolerant society would allow for someone to speak their personal religious view, even in a public forum.
Maybe when the church starts practicing tolerance they will in turn receive it.
-
Sandman defends the govermental right to stomp on the little guy... details at 11....
-
I always thought a Valedictorian "earned" the right to speak at the commencement ceremony. The school pulled the plug soley because she was expressing her religious beliefs. Beliefs that were certainly a part of who she is and how she accomplished what she did. I'm beginning to think of the ACLU as a terrorist organization. They certainly struck fear in the heart of that school.
-
The ACLU didn't make the policy.
-
Lukster, as valedictorian you earn the privlege to freely speak your mind as long as you do not deviate from the governmentally approved script.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The ACLU didn't make the policy.
Right. :rolleyes:
-
So good of the ACLU to tell us we shouldn't complain.
"There should be no controversy here," ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
-
Wrong (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=11670)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Wrong (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=11670)
Did you read the last remark in that?
"Lichtenstein said the ACLU has the right to revive its lawsuit if the school district decides to allow prayer at future graduation ceremonies."
-
Yeah... did you read this part?
Superintendent Carlos Garcia warned board members their refusal to implement a ban jeopardized $70 million in federal funding, including money subsidizing the district's free and reduced lunch program.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When a preacher stands on the courthouse steps and preaches to a gathering, should that be disallowed because he is using public facilities for a sermon?
Perhaps a more tolerant society would allow for someone to speak their personal religious view, even in a public forum.
Holy straw man. A preacher can preach on the steps all he wants; this girl can speak on the steps of the school all she wants about whatever she wants. When she is invited to speak at an official school function, but tells them beforehand she's going to speak in a way inconsistent with policy, they have all the right in the world to un-invite her. It's not about religion at all.
If she had turned in a draft speech entitled "Why I wouldn't cry if everyone in this school were to die from AIDS tomorrow," would you expect the principal to allow her to speak at a school sponsored event? She made it known that she was going to give a speech that the school could not endorse due to its policy, so the school also did not endorse her as being a representative of the school at commencement.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
When she is invited to speak at an official school function, but tells them beforehand she's going to speak in a way inconsistent with policy, they have all the right in the world to un-invite her. It's not about religion at all.
You think they would have shut off the microphone had she strayed from the governmentally approved speech and talked of who made the best hamburger in Vegas?Of course it's about religion.
Officials and a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union said on June 16 that administrators followed federal law when they cut the microphone on Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb as she began deviating from a preapproved speech and reading from a version that mentioned God and contained biblical references.
Of course it's about religion.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The ACLU didn't make the policy.
AND NEITHER DID OUR ORIGINAL FOUNDING GOVERNMENT
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You think they would have shut off the microphone had she strayed from the governmentally approved speech and talked of who made the best hamburger in Vegas?Of course it's about religion.
Only if they had a policy stating that the school would not endorse a one hamburger chain over another.
If she had made any speech that violated any of the school's policies, they should have shut her off. In this case religion only matters because the school has a policy on it.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
AND NEITHER DID OUR ORIGINAL FOUNDING GOVERNMENT
So what?
-
Ok Tarmac... I'll put you down as in favor of free speech unless it conflicts with government policy.
-
If that's where you want to set up "my" straw man, go for it.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Only if they had a policy stating that the school would not endorse a one hamburger chain over another.
If she had made any speech that violated any of the school's policies, they should have shut her off. In this case religion only matters because the school has a policy on it.
You don't see what you said?
-
Of course I do. I wrote it.
-
So apparently "your straw man" has a little meat on his bones...
-
I don't get your metaphor.
-
1. Girl strays from approved script.
2. Stray violates school policy.
3. Policy written to protect seperation of Church and State.
4. Tarmac OK with this, says nothing to do with religion.
5. If policy barred hamburger comparison, Tarmac OK with that.
6. Holden notes Tarmac OK with government limiting free speech if speech violates government policy.
7. Tarmac says if Holden wants to set up Tarmac's straw man there, OK
8. Holden makes metaphor regarding the consistancy of Tarmac's straw man, saying perhaps the argument is of more substance than just straw.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
6. Holden notes Tarmac OK with government limiting free speech if speech violates government policy.
Ok, got your metaphor now. The straw man still stands, as your point #6... I'm contending that this is not an issue of free speech because the girl is free to speak her mind as a private citizen, just not as a representative of the public school... which she is, since she was invited to speak at a government sponsored event with the implication that she represents the institution.
Are you ever going to make a point, or just sit back and snipe those that do? You're arguing like a Democrat... telling the opposition they're wrong, but never even asserting your supposedly better alternative.
And with that, I'm done.
-
Tarmac, since your gone and do not wish to discuss further, just for the record I'll just quote myself apparently not suggesting an alternative.
posted by Holden McGroin about 20 posts up
Perhaps a more tolerant society would allow for someone to speak their personal religious view, even in a public forum.
My alternative is to allow a valedictorian to speak as she wished and charge those who listen to tolerate views that may not be their own.
-
This young woman spoke as a private citizen at the invitation of the school. Judging by the response of the audience to her censoring, the ideal of free speech is still very much alive. I think the school and their ACLU overlord lost that round.
-
When all else fails, declare a victory and move on. :aok
-
I wouldn't call 400 jeering students a failure. I'm betting that more than a few of them felt that liberty was trampled that day.
-
The fact that they all agree doesn't necessarily make them right.
-
By "right" I assume you mean lawful. That brings us back to the Constitution and it's First Amendment. Where in there are you reading that one shall have freedom of speech so long as it doesn't entail mentioning your religious beliefs in a speech? What law does that speech violate exactly?
It's late, by "right" you probably meant correct. How they felt about it is more important than how you or I think they should have felt.
-
She didn't just mention her belief in a speech. If so, the school would not have cut her off.
-
She should have been free to say whatever she wanted within the alloted time.
Make no mistake what the ACLU is all about.
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.
-
I dont think that if that had been a Muslim girl talking about Allah.....they wouldnt have pulled the plug on her then.
District lawyer Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross the line into the realm of preaching.
I think thats a matter of opinion as far as what IS and what ISNT preaching.
Administrators' decision drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families gathered for the June 15 ceremony at a Las Vegas casino.
Those 400 students and their families obviously thought it was the wrong descion.
-
Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of communist party members in the 1940s. He also retired from the ACLU over 56 years ago.
He's not relevant.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I dont think that if that had been a Muslim girl talking about Allah.....they wouldnt have pulled the plug on her then.
I think Superman can beat the snot out of Spiderman.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think Superman can beat the snot out of Spiderman.
Meaning? lol
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of communist party members in the 1940s. He also retired from the ACLU over 56 years ago.
He's not relevant.
Based on their current campaign against religion and their stance on the second amendment I'd say they're pretty much on the same track established by their founder.
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Meaning? lol
I'm sorry, I thought we were opening the discussion for wild speculation. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm sorry, I thought we were opening the discussion for wild speculation. :)
Do you honestly believe they would have pulled the plug on her if she was Muslim and speaking about Allah? Remember the cartoons? Remember the false reporting of a copy of the Koran being flushed at Gitmo? Remember the all the riots, death threats and fatwas issued because of these and similar events?
Let's not forget that Dutch film maker that was murdered.
No, they dont pull the plug on a Muslim girl. :)
-
I have no idea what they would have done. Not much point in speculation. Superman rocks.
I know that if it were me, I'd pull the plug. To do otherwise is to admit defeat to the terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I have no idea what they would have done. Not much point in speculation. Superman rocks.
I know that if it were me, I'd pull the plug. To do otherwise is to admit defeat to the terrorists.
So is apologizing and removing the cartoons. People still did it though. I don't see this as speculation. I am positive those administrators would have let a Muslim girl keep speaking, regardless of what she was saying.
I believe you would pull the plug you cold hearted beast. :D
-
If not for the ACLU thugs we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Lemme make sure I'm getting this right. By pulling the plug we are protecting people's right to not hear anything they might find offensive at the expense of free speech? :aok
-
There are limits to free speech. The separation of church and state is one of those limits.
If you wish to preach at a public school function, you're out of luck.
If the ACLU wishes to champion the separation of church and state, I'm all for them doing so.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There are limits to free speech. The separation of church and state is one of those limits.
If you wish to preach at a public school function, you're out of luck.
If the ACLU wishes to champion the separation of church and state, I'm all for them doing so.
You and the ACLU may claim that free speech is limited by "the separation of church and state", whatever the heck that means, but I don't think you'll find it in the Constitution. If you can please enlighten me.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So is apologizing and removing the cartoons. People still did it though. I don't see this as speculation. I am positive those administrators would have let a Muslim girl keep speaking, regardless of what she was saying.
I believe you would pull the plug you cold hearted beast. :D
IIRC, the people apologizing and removing cartoons we're not Americans. AFAIK, the rights to free speech and the freedom of the press are more restricted in most countries than they are here in the U.S., including the democratic countries as well.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You and the ACLU may claim that free speech is limited by "the separation of church and state", whatever the heck that means, but I don't think you'll find it in the Constitution. If you can please enlighten me.
Take it up with the Supreme Court. They've upheld the separation of church and state on a number of occasions. Google is your friend.
-
If you wish to preach at a public school function, you're out of luck.
Whether or not she was preaching is a matter of opinion. The article doesnt tell us what she said either. However, at least 400 students and their families thought it was the wrong descion to shut her down. So I think it's debateable whether or not she was in fact preaching.
Since we dont know what she said, it might be speculation to say she was, or wasnt. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Take it up with the Supreme Court. They've upheld the separation of church and state on a number of occasions. Google is your friend.
I agree that there is to be no official state religion but how does that bear on freedom of speech?
-
Originally posted by lukster
I'm beginning to think of the ACLU as a terrorist organization.
Apparently you're quite willing to slap the terrorist label on anything not in-line with your personal beliefs. You've got a long war on terror ahead then...
-
We should not tolerate Lukster's ideas on the ACLU. Let's restrict his freedom to express them.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Whether or not she was preaching is a matter of opinion. The article doesnt tell us what she said either. However, at least 400 students and their families thought it was the wrong descion to shut her down. So I think it's debateable whether or not she was in fact preaching.
Since we dont know what she said, it might be speculation to say she was, or wasnt. :)
Well... we know that the guy with control of the PA system thought she was preaching.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... we know that the guy with control of the PA system thought she was preaching.
Exactly, just one persons opinion compared to the opinions of hundreds in the audience. :)
-
Well.. the fact that he was outnumbered doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. I doubt very much that the audience saw the "approved" speech beforehand.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Apparently you're quite willing to slap the terrorist label on anything not in-line with your personal beliefs. You've got a long war on terror ahead then...
They have the resources to intimidate just about anyone and they freely do so to further their agenda. From their actions I can't see that their goals have changed since they were founded. While they don't blow up buildings, so far as I know, their efforts have been more destructive than all of the attacks by angry bombers combined in this country.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well.. the fact that he was outnumbered doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong. I doubt very much that the audience saw the "approved" speech beforehand.
That is true, yet it doesnt necessarily make him right either. :)
I doubt any of the audience saw the approved version and I doubt any of us will either. In fact, I doubt we ever get to see what she actually said either. If that happened, we could have a debate about whether or not she was in fact *preaching*. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... we know that the guy with control of the PA system thought she was preaching.
Can there be any doubt at all that the guy in control of the PA was scared ****less he would be slapped hard with yet another ACLU lawsuit for somehow not keeping the church and state separate? Much easier to pull the plug than fight for what's right.
It's traditional everywhere in America to let the Valedictorian speak. How can this possibly be construed as state sponsored religion? Anyone with any sense knows that this student is speaking of their own personal experience and values. Denying this person, especially one of such demonstrated excellence, the opportunity to speak their mind and heart is not only oppresive but just plain stupid.
-
Bible thumping at a tax funded public forum.
Crossed the line. She was given direction in advance and chose to ignore it.
-
Anyone with any sense knows that this student is speaking of their own personal experience and values.
Although I dont know that (none of us do for sure) since we dont know exactly what her comments were. I do suspect that was her only intent.
Bible thumping at a tax funded public forum.
We dont know thats what she was doing, all we have is one newspaper article.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Bible thumping at a tax funded public forum.
Crossed the line. She was given direction in advance and chose to ignore it.
I only hope more choose to cross that line of tyranny.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Although I dont know that (none of us do for sure) since we dont know exactly what her comments were. I do suspect that was her only intent.
We dont know thats what she was doing, all we have is one newspaper article.
I meant Valedictorians in the general sense but I still think it applies to this specific person.
-
You are right about the Valedictorians speaking at the commencement ceremonies, that is tradition here in the US. I too, suspect she was just speaking about her own experiences. That is *just* my suspicion though since we dont have enough facts to say so one way or the other. :)
-
Originally posted by lukster
.....their efforts have been more destructive than all of the attacks by angry bombers combined in this country.
Lol, I'm sure that even the most avid opponent of the ACLU (you aside) will find that comment a bit too lopsided. But eh, nuance has never been a concept you've grasped as already evidenced by your comments in this thread.
-
The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights when it suits their purpose. The occasional lawsuit filed by them on behalf of a right-wing cause is merely a sop thrown to appease it's critics.
The ACLU must assume some of the blame for the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits filed by "victims" of "crimes" against civil liberties. As long as this organization, and the lawyers intrenched in Congress, remained opposed to tort reform, such lawsuits will remain a plague on society.
Having sat through numerous graduation speeches, I can state that many of the graduates speaking have made statements thanking their parents, friends, teachers, and God, for helping them achieve their goals. In the past, no one in the audience even raised an eyebrow.
Not so today. Even red states such as my own are beginning to witness recent immigrants from the left coast or the frozen north raising a ruckus about these statements. They don't get much support from the locals...but the ACLU is front and center lending a helping hand.
They defend our rights when it suits them.
-
""I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union."
That is all you need to know about the ACLU.
They are a commie organization that wants the government to control our every action and individualism to be crushed by an all powerful state... they are for the state owning all property and your lives.
In a revolution of any kind.... they would have to be hunted down and exterminated.
lazs
-
The ACLU will take a case to the Supreme Court to defend a person's right to distribute child pornography http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html as the self-proclaimed defenders of the First Amendment.
Yet they will also take to the Supreme Court just about anyone that wants to exercise their First Amendment rights if it involves their religion and the ACLU can somehow invoke this mysterious but all-poweful "separation fo church and state" litany.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The ACLU will take a case to the Supreme Court to defend a person's right to distribute child pornography http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html as the self-proclaimed defenders of the First Amendment.
Yet they will also take to the Supreme Court just about anyone that wants to exercise their First Amendment rights if it involves their religion and the ACLU can somehow invoke this mysterious but all-poweful "separation fo church and state" litany.
LOL. Try reading the decision and the opinion of the court. Ferber was acquitted on two counts of violating New York 263.10. The two convictions for violation of 263.15 were overturned on appeal because it's a poorly written law.
Section 263.15 was underinclusive because it discriminated against visual portrayals of children engaged in sexual activity by not also prohibiting the distribution of films of other dangerous activity. It was also overbroad because it prohibited the distribution of materials produced outside the State, as well as materials, such as medical books and educational sources, which [p753] "deal with adolescent sex in a realistic but nonobscene manner."
Got anything more from the talking points playbook?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
LOL. Try reading the decision and the opinion of the court. Ferber was acquitted on two counts of violating New York 263.10. The two convictions for violation of 263.15 were overturned on appeal because it's a poorly written law.
Got anything more from the talking points playbook?
I don't think you understood what happened there. The New York Court of Appeals overturned the convictions. However, this went to the US Supreme Court which upheld the lower courts convictions. Maybe you should try rereading it?
-
Let me make it easy for ya.
"Held: As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 753-774."
The ACLU was on the losing side here. Both legally and morally. It seems to me they want to defend causes like this which have little real connection to the First Amendment while at the same time opposing those who would truly exercise that right like the young woman about which this thread was started. It's obvious to me what their agenda is.
Forget about the ACLU for a minute. This isn't about the "church's" right to be heard. It also isn't a case whereby one person who speaks of their religion, in a very appropriate setting imo, is somehow representing the state because she does so at a school function. This is about one person exercising their right to freely speak about something important to them in a setting where they were invited to do just that.
If dissent is American then this young woman is truly American.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I don't think you understood what happened there. The New York Court of Appeals overturned the convictions. However, this went to the US Supreme Court which upheld the lower courts convictions. Maybe you should try rereading it?
Oops... my apologies. IANAL.
-
Ya oughta be careful who ya side with. Just because the ACLU opposes religion does not mean that they share your goals. Unless your goal for this country is complete socialism maintained by "dictatorship" if necessary once established. Roger Baldwin may have renounced communism in 1940 when Stalin made a pact with Hitler but I don't think he, or those ACLU members who remianed loyal to the communist party, ever abandoned their goals for absolute socialism in this country.
-
When I was very young I was a member of the ACLU. Until I learned that the high ideals they claim to protect are only applied to members of "approved" groups. Christians, heterosexuals, and gun-owners need not apply.
-
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)
That is a summary of the first amendment by James Madison, who is known as the Father of the Constitution.
Reading that, I find it hard to believe that the Founders intended for this young girl to be censored the way she was.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
IIRC, the people apologizing and removing cartoons we're not Americans. AFAIK, the rights to free speech and the freedom of the press are more restricted in most countries than they are here in the U.S., including the democratic countries as well.
Sorry, I missed this one earlier Sandman. While the people who apologized and removed the cartoons werent Americans, those who falsely reported the flushing of a Koran at Gitmo were. In the Muslim world the reactions were pretty much the same.