Posted on 02/11/2014 9:26:14 PM PST by BurningOak
The motive of the imperious Putin for signing into law Russia’s anti-propagandizing-to-minors bill may be to exploit moral beliefs he actually disdains in order to divide various and sundry constituencies around the world for his pernicious purposes, but a law that prohibits propagandizing to minors is not in itself pernicious.
...
A defense of a law that seeks to prevent the exposure of minors to homosexuality-affirming dogma is not a defense of Putin, the cagey and cunning political animal.
...
Exposing minors to homosexuality-affirming propaganda is nowhere more troubling than in our public schools where neither children nor teachers are encouraged to study in depth all sides of issues related to homosexuality. Quite the contrary. Curricula and supplementary resources and activities are controlled by “progressive” dogma, the kind of dogma promulgated by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (Privately, “progressive” teachers actually scoff at the suggestion that there are sides other than theirs worthy of study.)
...
“Agents of change,” secure in their tenured positions in public schools, share a certain esprit de corps with totalitarian regimes. They all hatch plans sub rosa to control the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, those victims—I mean, students—happen to be other people’s minor children.
Until our publicly subsidized educators relinquish their white-knuckled grip on curricula with their de facto enforcement of censorship, perhaps we need an anti-propagandizing-to-minors law.
(Excerpt) Read more at illinoisfamily.org ...
While I personally am very concerned about the homosexual agenda, I am against the law because of my absolutist view of the 1st Amendment and free speech. Basically I don't think any opinion should be banned from public discussion including vile stuff like Nazis or NAMBLA or Westboro Baptist Church. They have a right to say what they want and I have a right to tell them to shove it.
Can a law protecting minors from gay propaganda be reconciled with the 1st Amendment?
Sorry but we are talking about minors and sex..I do not see this as a free speech issue any more then pitching, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs or even hetrosexual sex to a minor by an adult
Putin is right. And one only has to look at what has happened in the USA as an object lesson. I don’t believe in being so open minded as to let our freedom, to be used as a weapon for destroying that very freedom.
There - fixed it!
While there are rare exceptions, a man or woman does not become a government school teacher in or principal of a government school today without passing political, ideological muster with the largely socialist/liberal educrats above him/her.
I picked up my grandson at his high school several times before the 2008 election. Nearly EVERY car in the teachers’ parking lot sported an OBAMA bumper sticker! Some were PLASTERED with them.
On one occasion AFTER the election, I had to pick him up in the Principal’s office. As I waited for him, the Principal came out of her office and asked who I was. (At all of 4-5” tall, I think she’s Robert Reich’s sister and just looks like the liberal/socialist she was. Actually, she looked like a bleeping troll!) I told her who I was and remarked on the student created anti-drug posters decorating the walls in the hallway.
Yes, she said, drugs are a problem in the schools today. I agreed and, recognizing the truck-size opening she’d just afforded me and unable to hold back, I remarked that the American voters had sent a wonderful message to our kids by installing in the White House a guy who still smokes pot and used cocaine in college? To my delight, the nearby ARMED security guy piped in with “Yeah, he admitted it on the campaign trail.”
She paused then blurted “What do you want me to say to that?” I said there was nothing she COULD say but that I was blown away by the hypocrisy of those posters inasmuch as it appears that, if one uses the bumper stickers on the cars in the teachers’ lot as a gauge, every adult in that building voted for an admitted drug user to lead the nation.
We turned and walked out. My grandson glanced back and remarked quietly that she did not look happy.
Sexualization of children destroys moral formation. No one has the “right” to sexualize other people’s children. Until 1960s parents didn’t allow schools or anyone to “sexualize” their young children. Since Rousseau, it WAS known that to focus little kids on sex is unnatural because of Latency and destroys their interest in intellectual pursuits during the major time of “learning”.
Innocence of children is essential. Exposing them to really sick vile unnatural ideas like sodomy, distorts their worldview of male and female and dad and mom. It removes morality from the sex act since sodomy is an unnatural and irrational, vile use of the human body. It mocks Natural Law and God’s Design of the human body—both fundamental to our “Justice” System and Reason. Justice is a Virtue and a “Justice” system should NEVER promote Vice or irrational concepts like sodomizing others. It is evil. Meaningless sex is evil which sodomy always is, uses humans as objects for recreational use—just lust.
Understanding sodomy distorts a child’s normal, natural sexual identity which in Latency is NOT focused on sex, unless the child is sexually abused.
Doctor Melvin Anchell has written extensively on Sex Ed and warned schools that Sex Ed is destructive to children. We didn’t have it until 1970 and morality in children plummeted. Sex is a private, intimate act best done by the parent or a parent’s close friend or relative. It is never a group activity which removes modesty and intimacy and privacy—all necessary for sex to be moral.
Sex Ed was a Lukacs invention to destroy intentionally Virtue in children. The Marxists know if Virtue is destroyed in childhood formation—it will collapse culture.
...”Can a law protecting minors from gay propaganda be reconciled with the 1st Amendment?”....
It’s not a first Ammendment issue..... this nation no longer protects it’s children as it once did.
When a population such as we have now, cares not about taking responsibility for life, family and work. When they have no common sense and believe anything goes, then that is an abuse of the Freedoms God has given.....
The problem isn’t those regulations, laws etc...it’s the people in Governance abusing and using their offices to benefit themselves, strong arm the public, barter the people and their monies to advance their personal agendas...without any regard for freedoms or regulating them on behalf of the people.
Bad Governance is a result of bad representatives and leadership. The blame lays at the feet of the leadership, and the means and ways of those who assist in giving ‘them’ the freedom to ‘abuse’ their power. ..and ‘ doing nothing’ to stop them is equally abusive.
We have this mess because what makes up this country as a people now is anything but what it once was....and may never be again.
Gays are furious at this law because, though they refuse to admit it, it hits directly at the minor recruitment tactics they rely on to perpetuate their “movement”.
LGBT clubs on school campuses, “tolerance” seminars, “anti-bullying” campaigns, “modernizing” sex ed curriculum, putting gay characters in children’s shows... all of these are aimed only at infecting the psyches of young children with perverse ideas at a young age. As long as we keep letting them get away with the lie that people are “born gay”, we allow them to have cover for all these things, because the gays can just say they are try to “reach out” to alienated youth who are already gay, rather than admitting that they are trying to recruit them and turn them gay.
Very good insight, I think you are right, though I still don’t know what can be done to stop it.
It will take a benevolent dictator who isn't too shy to firmly insist on *his* agenda. Of course, the same dictator (no need to point fingers) may have agenda that you disagree with. That's the typical problem with dictators.
Why can't this be corrected democratically? Simply because modern political technologies *use* democracy to remake the society into what they want. This includes the voters. Freedom of speech is also a freedom to brainwash - and there are many people who are receptive to brainwashing. Look at enthusiastic Obamacare supporters... until 6 months ago. Look at Hollywood's production, where every other character is LGBT or worse. Look at talentless performers. Look at proliferation of violent rap and associated "culture." Look at the TV (if you still have it.) A certain German leader in only ten years managed to turn the population of his country into robots who were willing to happily kill for him and die for him.
It was said on many occasions, by many wise men: democracy requires an educated, intelligent voter. Democracy of Greek city-states had many problems. Wonder no more why you had to be a white, male property owner in the early USA if you wanted to vote. The reason is the same why a homeless drunkard cannot stagger into the meeting of shareholders of IBM and vote - he has nothing to vote with, be it shares or ability. But every modern democracy is happy to let the drunkard vote, no matter if he knows what he votes for, or whether he personally has a dog in the fight. "Tax the rich? Any time, with pleasure! I don't even care what happens after that." This is why the industry of political technologies exists - to coax all those homeless winos and above, to vote as their handlers want. The technologists don't use reason; that'd be too complicated. They use fear, uncertainty and doubt - and tons of dirt that they pour onto their opponents.
I am pretty sure he never actually said that.
I sure hope you meant to write that sex education is best done by etc.
FDR banned pro-Nazi demonstrations and didn’t allow Nazis freedom of the press. In your perfect little 1st amendment world we’d have Nazis demonstrating in front of the White House in 1942. Our Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
“In your perfect little 1st amendment world we’d have Nazis demonstrating in front of the White House in 1942.”
Nah, we’d have the Nazis show up, and a crowd twenty times the size would show up to oppose the Nazis. The Nazis would fear for their lives, as the police protection could barely hold the angry crowd back, and the Nazis wouldn’t show up again. That’s what happened when the Nazis marched through Skokie, and that’s what would have happened if they had tried it 1942 too.
The law is a Russian law. They don't HAVE a first amendment.
If Madison, Washington, and Jefferson ever imagined a nation wherein gay propaganda was forced on children via government schools, we wouldn't have one either.
“Nah, we’d have the Nazis show up, and a crowd twenty times the size would show up to oppose the Nazis. The Nazis would fear for their lives, as the police protection could barely hold the angry crowd back, and the Nazis wouldn’t show up again.”
It’s not that simple. With an absolutist 1st amendment reading, soldiers, whose brothers were fighting the Nazis in Europe, could be called out to defend the Nazi’s freedom of speech against violent crowds on American streets.
Sure, they could be, but I doubt they would be, at least not quickly enough to prevent the Nazis from getting enough lumps to convince them not to come back. Legal remedies are still subject to being implemented by humans, so they are never as effective as they look on paper.
The law is a Russian law. They don't HAVE a First Amendment.Can a law protecting minors from gay propaganda be reconciled with the 1st Amendment?
If Madison, Washington, and Jefferson ever imagined a nation wherein gay propaganda was forced on children via government schools, we wouldn't have one either.
The First Amendment is fine as written, and I think we should enforce it. That would mean the elimination of licensing of broadcasting, for starters. And, crucially, it would mean that wire-service journalism would be abolished as a form of self-censorship of journalism. Wire services didn’t exist when the Constitution and First Amendment were ratified, and the Internet didn’t exist when the wire services were formed, and were accepted by the public notwithstanding their centralizing of propaganda power.The wire services, principally the AP, legitimated the fatuous conceit that journalism was objective. It had to do so in order to defend itself from questions about its propaganda concentration, and the public “needed” to believe it - because without that conceit the fabulous ability of the telegraph to inform the public about distant events wasn’t as wonderful as the public wanted to believe.
Consequently the AP paved the way for licensed broadcasting “in the public interest” and the whole “objectivity” con which includes government education.
Understand, any good-faith attempt at objectivity is laudable. And it is not wrong to say that you are trying to be objective - if you are. But to claim that you actually are objective is to convict yourself of not being objective about yourself. To claim that you actually are objective is to excuse yourself from the serious self-examination which inheres in any good-faith attempt at objectivity. To claim that you are objective - or, same thing, to join a mutual-admiration society in which you know that everyone else will claim you are objective - is to use that claim to precisely the same intent and effect that the ancient Greek Sophists used their claim of superior wisdom. It is a propaganda technique, which is why the derogatory label “sophistry” derives from Sophist.
All this is to say that the propaganda media are not inherent in the First Amendment. Neither the wire service oligopoly on news nor the FCC governmental licensing of broadcasting are implied in the First Amendment. The AP was held to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1945, but then the AP was “too big to fail.” With the advent of the Internet, that is no longer true. The AP, and its member news organizations individually, should be sued into oblivion for colluding in the smearing of people including George Zimmerman, the Duke Lacrosse Team, and every Republican presidential nominee at least since Nixon.The FCC should be reduced to a minor technical agency, unable to promote the socialist propaganda known as “objective” news - and in fact enjoined against even allowing news broadcasting.
“Sure, they could be, but I doubt they would be...”
Good for you. That’s the point, isn’t it? There are limits on the 1st amendment if your enemy uses your 1st amendment freedom against you to destroy you. Isn’t that what this debate is all about?
“That’s the point, isn’t it? There are limits on the 1st amendment if your enemy uses your 1st amendment freedom against you to destroy you. Isn’t that what this debate is all about?”
No, I don’t think so. The 1st Amendment is a limit on the government, not on the people. My example was intended to show that the people can clamp down on such enemy tactics, even if the government is prevented from doing so.
Of course, using Nazis in 1942 is a silly example, because we have the War Powers Act which allows the 1st Amendment to be suspended in a situation like that, but it can’t be applied in peacetime against some domestic group.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.