Federal Judge Bans Freedom Of Speech - Comment on Confederate flag to be cut from memorial speech

Baltimore Sun ^ | 6/6/03 | AP

[shuckmaster]

A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs can cut several lines of a speech that is to be delivered by a Confederate group leader at a military cemetery.

The agency objected to plans of Patrick J. Griffin III to include statements protesting the government's decision to fly the Confederate flag at a St. Mary's County site only during an annual memorial service.

[shuckmaster]

Aw, Shucks!

[shuckmaster]

Dixie ping

[bigghurtt]

"I abide by and respect the law, even though I may not agree with it," he said.

and thus, one of the many differences between conservatives and liberals.

[HatSteel]

This is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It is an abridgement of speech. Whether I agree with the speech or not is NOT the issue. And if the VA has a rule requiring "neutral" content in speeches in their cemeteries, then that rule is unconstitutional and should be struck down. My sense is that at some level this violates the 3rd provision of the 1st Amendment as well. The right to peaceably assemble includes public lands. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievance seems to me to include more than a "petition drive" with names on a list. It also means that one guy can stand up and speak the grievance on his mind....just as this man is doing.

I don't think this would pass muster in higher courts (unless, they too, were ignorant/dishonest.)

[Beck_isright]

I'm do glad we have a Ministry of Truth to prevent these radicals from disrupting ceremonies held by subdepartments of the Ministry of War.

[HatSteel]

I hope your words are intended to be ironic.

I, for one, do not support the confederate cause in any way, shape, or form.

I do, however, support the 1st amendment to the Constitution. This act on the part of Judge and VA is a clear violation of that amendment.

They can fly or not fly that flag over that cememtery. That'll be a decision that someone has to make.

But to tell someone he's not allowed EVEN TO SPEAK HIS OPINION on the subject is a violation of the first order. Besides that, it's idiotic. Since we're talking about fueling energy on this side or that side of this issue, then why do something so blatantly wrong and give ammunition to the pro-Confederacy crowd?

[aomagrat]

The war on Southern Heritage continues.

[Non-Sequitur]

But VA rules require public remarks at military cemeteries to be nonpartisan and "viewpoint neutral."

So how do you do that without ignoring the war entirely? If the remarks are being made at a POW camp where confederate prisoners were held the why shouldn't the remarks reflect that?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Its a military cemetary, and military rules have always been pretty strict about political speech in association with its events - which the courts have long settled. They control access to their cemetaries, and to the public events held there. Further, officers have been cashiered time and again over political activity.

Besides, a ruling adverse to the VA would open up Arlington (or any military cemetary) to the goons of ANSWER.

[groanup]

"Bulldoze the Confederate graves, then we won't have to listen to the LOS-neoconfederate-neosecessionist whines about how much honor need be paid to the confederate cause."

Bulldoze you own ancestors' graves, and while you're at it, try to find some honor among them.

[HatSteel]

That's the price of freedom.

There can be legitimate rules passed about how to physically treat someone else's grave.

But you should be able to speak freely. Period. They might control the times when the park is open. They might control the calender and schedule of events within the park. They can even control where official speeches can take place. (Standing on a grave can be forbidden.)

But that cannot control what gets said.

[patriot_wes]

you said....I don't think this would pass muster in higher courts (unless, they too, were ignorant/dishonest.)

....and therein lies the big joke!

[HELLRAISER II]

It amazes me that you would say that. Everybody thinks that they can just $hit on anything Southern while we're suppose to bow down to every minority, special interest group or fag. All I can say is that anyone who plans on coming down to Dixie and bulldozing Confederate graves better be ready for the 55 gallon drum of Whip ass that will be slapped on their @ss!

[Lee'sGhost]

I make it a habit to try and never say anything on a post that I wouldn't say to someone's face. Others, like yourself, try to make up for inadequacies and shortcomings (personality, intellect, penis, whatever . . .) by making bold, in your face statements to people whom you wouldn't even look at if you were in the same room. I suggest that if you feel so strongly about this issue that get your bulldozer and come on down. Or, more realistically, just gather up your neo-intellect, come on down and start making stupid statements like the ones you post.

Not only do you insult Southerners, you insult the North as well.

[Amelia]

But to tell someone he's not allowed EVEN TO SPEAK HIS OPINION on the subject is a violation of the first order. Besides that, it's idiotic.

They didn't say he couldn't - they just said he couldn't do it at that time, at that place.

I think you have a good point that a court challenge might stand a good chance of winning, but I'd also bet that the rule came into being because of speeches being given at veteran's cemeteries that many people felt were not respecful of the honored dead buried there.

There are other times and places to make the same point.

[Kerberos]

"Besides, a ruling adverse to the VA would open up Arlington (or any military cemetary) to the goons of ANSWER. "

Excellent point!

I suppose the posters who see this as a restriction of freedom of speech would also agree that if they had an employee, who wanted to covert all of their customers to communism, that would be ok. Because to not allow the employee to speak they’re own mind on the subject, would constitute restriction of freedom of speech.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

It is important to destroy a peoples history. An ahistorical individual is a little atom floating in a void, easily controlled. My people were yankees and fought as yankees. I would have been a yankee. However, that does not stop a man from respecting his enemy. The Southern leaders, even if wrong, were worthy of respect. They were Noble men engaged in a Noble cause i.e. something above and beyond oneself. Something today's trash does not even understand!

[Olde School]

I'm having trouble understanding the concept of remarks being nonpartisan and "viewpoint neutral."

If one at a WW II cemetary made mention of those who died in a "valiant cause" the speaker would be in violation since "valiant" would be considered a viewpoint?

It is extremely difficult to make remarks that are "viewpoint neutral."

[lawdude]

"Perpetuating some mythical history..."

Care to elaborate on the various "myths"?