Posted on 09/24/2002 11:22:47 PM PDT by Kwilliams
Exactly. And in this case, Congress has done no such thing.
You're right, Imal. I believe that the courts say that if the school sells space to place your message at the school, you have the right to say what you want (you know, freedom of speech). Ads that go against previous limitations of free speech (you know, like statements advocating violence) would not be permitted. If the school is unhappy with what people say, then take away the policy of permitting people to buy space. And if someone puts up an ad for NAMBLA, you can bet that people will be picketing and using all lawful means (as per the 1st amendment) to make NAMBLA to take their ad down.
American in Israel is right. There is nothing unconstitutional at all about that church putting up a verse from the Bible. Congress has established no religion. No one is being coerced into believing anything. When an ad is put up for Bill's deli, that doesn't coerce me into thinking his deli is better, or that the school supports Bill's deli, or that I need to believe in Bill's deli. There is nothing wrong at all about putting up that sign. Do you all not give Americans enough credit to be able to read it, and decide for themselves what they think about it? What do you think we all are? Morons?
I would very much like to know what body of law you're drawing on. When has the subject of school ad space (or a similar enough case to apply here) been in court before, and where? What is the basis in law for this ruling?
But legalities aside, I find this whole concept of selling ad space on school property as a fund-raiser to be a major failure. How many $300 signs will they have to sell to cover the costs of this lawsuit?
Looks like there won't be any new textbooks next year because of this nonsense.
Whole thing boils down to the fact that school is a cultural institution, and that one-size-fits-none government schooling is Constitutionally problematic. Either it establishes a religion, or it establishes the principle that G_d is not important. Catch-22
"In the end, did America become the land of the free or the home of the Knave? You decide..."Here, here! Very good points!
I don't believe that the constitution guarantees freedom from being offended! Instead, the very first amendment rightly guarantees that the government can not restrict religion...nor freedom of speech. The government school, in this case is doing both!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,As far as I know, drinking alcohol, smoking and the man/boy love association are not religions. Evangelism, on the other hand, is an exercise of Christianity. This is not just a matter of freedom of speech. It is also a matter of the state prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity.
Then don't. But don't supress the free speech rights of others.
The Constitution of the United States of America.
Right on. But even if someone should be offended (there are always some thin-skinned people), it doesn't make any difference. The Constitution gurarantees free speech; there is no right to not be offended. But agreed. In this case, it's hard to believe that someone could truly be offended anyway.
"I would very much like to know what body of law you're drawing on."
"The Constitution of the United States of America."
Cute, but vague and meaningless, in the context of my actual post:
"I would very much like to know what body of law you're drawing on. When has the subject of school ad space (or a similar enough case to apply here) been in court before, and where? What is the basis in law for this ruling?"
You didn't answer my question at all. You replied to a statement, then ignored the questions.
If you're willing to have an honest discussion about this, I'm happy to participate. If you wish instead to play the same tired old disingenuous word games I've seen a thousand times before, I'm not interested, and I won't play that.
You caught my attention when you said:
"I believe that the courts say that if the school sells space to place your message at the school, you have the right to say what you want (you know, freedom of speech)."
I would very much like to know what facts drive your "belief". Is your belief based on truth or faith?
So, here are the questions you didn't respond to, broken down for you:
When has the subject of school ad space (or a similar enough case to apply here) been in court before, and where?
What is the basis in law for this ruling?
Care to respond to these relevant questions?
And don't you molest children. Do you see the ad hominem attack in these sorts of statements?. Since when am I suppressing the free speech rights of others? Please confine this discussion to the facts, rather than pointing a finger at me.
Free speech rights do not extend to advertisements on public school buildings. As I have also pointed out, I consider it wrong for anyone to advertise on or in a public school or other public building, such as the US Capitol or Washington Monument.
Does that mean I am opposed to freedom of religion or free expression by religious groups? Definitely not. I see religious ads on TV all the time, and more power to them. Churches can post scripture all over their own property all they want. They can buy TV & radio airtime, billboard space, advertising space in newspapers, and publish whatever they want, just like anyone else.
Members of Congress open their sessions with prayers, and are free to do so, as they have done since the nation was founded. But if they dare to hang a sign in the Senate that says "Vote Democrat" or "Absolut Senate", then they are crossing the line by desecrating public property paid for by all of America's taxpayers, past and present, not all of whom may agree with these messages.
In short, I have no problem whatsoever with freedom of religion and freedom of expression by religious groups. I do have a problem with the use of public facilities to promote private agendas, religious or otherwise.
Am I crying for government censorship? Where did you dig that up? Please explain how this relates to my posts and clearly expressed point of view whatsoever. Please cite the offending post(s). Again, you are pointing a finger at me, rather than addressing the topic.
Kindly read my posts, and if you somehow derive the mistaken notion that I support government censorship, please demonstrate exactly how I may have mislead you. I truly don't know where you're getting this idea. Kindly address what I'm actually saying, not what you imply I'm saying.
When you say "You cannot criticize the President because you are forcing your beliefs on me", you are suppressing someone's free speech rights. It's the same way with religious speech.
Again, a canard that has no logical connection to this discussion. I have never said "You cannot criticize the President because you are forcing your beliefs on me", so why are you saying this? What good is a "point" like this when it's not true and doesn't apply to this discussion?
I have already stated in no uncertain terms that I support free speech. Where I take exception to the article in question has to do with the use of public school facilities for the promotion of private advertisements, whether personal, business, political or religious.
Why don't you address this topic, instead of trying to cloud it with irrelevant hyperbole and ad hominem attacks?
Now please observe Free republic rules: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts. Stay on the topic, dazzle me with the brilliance and truth of your point of view on its own merits, and stop pointing your finger at me.
So far, I am unconvinced by your arguments. Putting words in my mouth doesn't make me more likely to believe you're right.
from the same person who posted this:And don't you molest children.
You are hopeless, son.
Are you arguing that "the free exercise of Christianity" should be treated differently from other forms of expression? The fact that you are apparently dismissing "drinking alcohol, smoking and the man/boy love association" because they are NOT religions is a statement on your part that religions should enjoy special privileges under the law.
Is that true?
You are hopeless, son.
Such insulting, condescending remarks as "You are hopeless, son" are well outside the realm of debate, and nothing more than yet another personal attack. In this case, you disgrace no one but yourself, and you do so in front of a very large audience.
I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was saying. Perhaps it has to do with the repeated and misguided practice of quoting out of context and then acting like that is some sort of intellectual victory. Again, I quote what I actually wrote:
[You wrote] Then don't. But don't supress the free speech rights of others.
And don't you molest children. Do you see the ad hominem attack in these sorts of statements?. Since when am I suppressing the free speech rights of others? Please confine this discussion to the facts, rather than pointing a finger at me.
It is obvious from the context that I was illustrating, based on what you wrote -- albeit with a rather extreme example of the same formula you used -- that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate. I'm sorry you were unable to understand the point I was trying to make.
I'm also sorry that your posts seem to have lost sight of the topic altogether. This is an important subject that deserves rational treatment. Finger-pointing doesn't accomplish anything useful, and you can throw all the troll-bait around that you want, it won't change the truth.
Your word games and personal attacks are obviously an attempt to dodge the substance of the discussion with dissembling and deception. It is both insulting and wrong to do that, violates the policy of the Free Republic, discredits whatever point you may be trying to make, and is a waste of space on the thread.
If you are willing to discuss the topic itself, rather than make personal attacks, I'll be happy to take up the subject. Otherwise, don't expect any further replies to your insulting posts (although I reserve the right to do so).
I've had enough people try to drag me into their mud pit to know the smell. I'm not going to play that game any further with you.
That's the exercise of my freedom of expression.
No, I'm not familiar with scads of court cases and court precedent on the trenchant issue of schools' selling ad space. But consider, YOU can say anything on school property that you want. YOU can go to a football game on school property and stand there and tell everyone that Christianity is the only way, or that homosexuality is bad, or that abortion is abominable, or that the president is an idiot. Of course, most people will pass you by. My point is that free speech is guaranteed to all who make speech on school property. It's just common sense to me that the same would apply in this case.
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.