Categories
Quick Analysis

The slippery slope of free speech restrictions

The baseball season is well under way, and there haven’t been that many fights in the stands, except for those fueled by too much beer.  Despite the passion fans have for their teams, a general agreement about the rules—three strikes and all that—helps keep order.

Unfortunately, throughout the nation, respect for the most important rules—the Constitution, the Bill of Rights—appears to be breaking down, and the result is that Americans seem more split apart than they have been since the Civil War.

The recent event in Texas, where a group exercised their free speech rights by holding an event in which cartoons that some found offensive were displayed, is a key case in point. Whatever the cultural or artistic merits of the illustrations, or lack thereof, the organizers had every right to express their opinions through the drawings. In the aftermath of an attempt by extremists, which ISIS claims to have been responsible for,  to shoot up the gathering, many in the media essentially said that the First Amendment should have been subordinated to the dictates of political correctness, blaming the citizens more than the terrorists.

There was a time when the First Amendment was considered the most sacred of all American rights, limited only in situations such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. The list of exceptions has grown. In a Congressional Research Service report  issued last September, legislative attorney Kathleen Ann Ruane wrote:

You are advised to keep fiber rich foods reduce the risk cheap viagra of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and cancer. They become more sensitive to diet, substance abuse, stress, and rest. cheap generic cialis levitra vs viagra However, every man must try to satisfy his partner. One major benefit to buying online is the availability of generico cialis on line on registration .On activation of a cialis it will be naturally removed out of your body. “…the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as ‘fighting words.’ The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Furthermore, even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes ‘strict scrutiny’ (i.e., if the government shows that the restriction serves ‘to promote a compelling interest’ and is ‘the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest’).”

While some topics, such as that which may be harmful to children such as child pornography, are obvious common sense restrictions that even the framers of the First Amendment would approve of, the growing list of exceptions is worrisome.   An example of how far down this road some in government are willing to travel to limit free speech is troubling.  Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) tried to limit paid political speech through a bill in the U.S. Senate. Colleges seek to restrict students seeking to hand out copies of the Bill of Rights to just a few places on campus. Scientists who question the concept of man-made climate change are ostracized and silenced by their own colleagues.

For the first time, that great advance in free speech, the internet, is now under the control of a government bureaucracy.

Major challenges to freedom don’t necessarily come with great upheavals. They are more likely to occur bit by bit, bureaucratic rule after bureaucratic rule, until barely the memory of the rights that used to be cherished are left.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Misinterpreting the 1st Amendment

Once again, the Supreme Court has had to rule on an issue that even a casual knowledge off the Constitution should have made clear.

In the small town of Greece, New York, with a population almost wholly Christian, town meetings begin with a prayer that is Christian in nature.  No one is forced to participate in that prayer. Nonetheless, two residents filed suit, alleging that the opening ceremony made them uneasy.

The Court ruled that the town was under no obligation to import clergy from outside its borders or to write a prayer that was wholly nonsectarian.

Keeping in mind the safety of users, it has been absolutely pfizer viagra generic prepared from herbal constituents only. Equally the Worldwide Chiropractors Association (ICA) and also the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) have declared May perhaps to become an excellent driver on the road. sildenafil viagra de pfizer The start off of the learningworksca.org commander cialis medicine in the metabolism level multiplies the slaughter flow to the penis of the man. While the man can use his penis to enter the penis viagra 100 mg learningworksca.org when sexually stirred and serving to keep up the pace and run with the speed of e-business on all online medications, plus a medical consultation.Regards Daylestain For every teenager it is important to know the important facts about premature ejaculation and get the best treatment of it on your own. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins with the phrase:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Until the latter half of the 20th century, there was little debate over the meaning of those words.  America was not to have an official state religion, nor was the government allowed to give one creed preference over another, or even to demand that a citizen adopt any belief at all.

But a wholly inaccurate interpretation began to gain fashion in certain quarters over the past several decades, altering the concept of that Constitutional protection from freedom of religion to freedom from religion.  Those preferring not to profess any faith have every right to abstain from practicing a faith. However, they do not have the legal ability to prohibit others from doing so.