Freedom of speech is a concept that is lost on liberals these days. Ironically, some of the very people who are often quick to say that unpopular speech is what needs to be protected by the law, are the first people to have no idea how to actually practice that idea:
But that is not how the Ninth Circuit treated Harper's appeal. Instead, in a 2-1 decision, Judge Reinhardt used the case to articulate a new concept of free speech regulation. Focusing on the specific anti-gay content of Harper's T-shirt, he ruled that schools may restrict "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation." In a footnote, he wrote that the court would "leave ... to another time" the question of limiting derogatory remarks aimed at gender.
What the court has done here is quite obviously to rule that the first amendment doesn't even exist. A thin-skinned minority, and there are plenty of them, can claim offense at anything, even the tone of voice and get the speech silenced under this ruling. He might as well have stated that minorities can have any speech they feel is bad toward them silenced without any meaningful right of appeal.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the Supreme Court will strike this ruling down because it would invariably be impossible to enforce without doing major damage to the Constitution, legal system and precedent. The Ninth Circuit appellate court, though, needs to have impeachment charges drafted against the two judges who voted for this ruling. It is clear from the statements of the judges in question that they allowed purely personal politics to guide this and were unswayed by the actual text of the first amendment.
Gay activist groups will hopefully recognize that this ruling, if upheld, will not only not win over supporters, but will further antagonize the public. They couldn't have asked for a worse ruling in this case because it just made a martyr out of the student whose free speech rights were curtailed.
The irony of this case that will be lost on the homosexual group whose protest started it is that it arose out of an intolerance for those who disagree non-violently with them. These people don't care about freedom, they're just petty rainbow-wearing brownshirts, not freedom fighters. Ideas never hurt anyone. Free speech never killed anyone. Silencing, them, however has lead to violence in the past. When the pendulum swings back, I think I will laugh when it slams hard into the gay activists' faces. They'll deserve it.
Hey Mike,
Been following your verbal tussles over on Roci. Good stuff. Your post begs an question in my mind,
Would you rather dissolve the 9th circuit or the fourteenth amendment which gives them any business in interpreting and reconciling state issues to federal constitutional rights?
Of the two, I'd take repealing the 14th amendment, but I'd gladly take a 3rd: an amendment that completely rewrites the 14th amendment:
"No state, nor the federal government, shall deny any citizen or legal immigrant of the United States due process of law in a public trial. Each state shall adopt for its constitution a series of amendments guaranteeing to its residents and citizens all equivalent rights recognized by the United States Constitution and whose deprivation or dilution by the United States is prohibited. Any state that refuses to adopt such amendments shall be denied representation in the Congress and its electors shall be barred from participating in the appointment of the President.
No child born in the United States shall be declared a citizen of the United States except if at least one parent be a citizen or it be adopted by a citizen of the United States.
Any law passed by Congress, or any executive order issued by the President, that contravenes the United States Constitution is illegal and may be removed from the laws of the United States by the judiciary. Any attempt to reestablish such a law without ratification of new amendments to this Constitution shall be punished by automatic dismissal of any elected or appointed official responsible and their being prohibited from seeking any federal office for life. In any case wherein material loss to life, limb or property occurs from such an action, it shall be legal for agents of the United States to seek criminal prosecution of the individuals who have contravened this constitution.
The United States shall be obligated to place at the disposal of the states, its agents for such situations as a state may require the extradition powers of the United States to seek redress of grievance against its own officials who, having fled the state for fear of prosecution for the deprivation of individual liberties, are beyond its normal legal jurisdiction. If the offender flees the United States, the Congress shall be legally obliged to issue a letter of marque and reprisal against the offender."
PS> And just so it's clear - employees, peons, and small-c corporate citizens only get to speak what their owner says is OK.
People, on the other hand, have Rights from THEIR Creator, and in turn are the creators, and thus masters, of the union, according to covenant. Don't let courts "presume" otherwise.
I should have added "shall guarantee to its citizens all rights guaranteed by this Constitution at the time of the drafting of this amendment."
When you say "Like C," are you referring to the C programming language? Sorry, but I remember you saying you're an engineer so I was curious.
MikeT - the problem (and the reason the never-ratified, but coerced, 14th Amendment is an Abominatin) is that small-c 'citizen of the United States' crap.
Read the Constitution carefully. Like C, it is a case-sensitive document, and anyone who knows better doesn't want to be a second-class (creation of the corporate state) 'US citizen'. As Humpty Dumpty said in a related context, "It's about who is to be master."
There's a reason it's called the Ninth Circus...
The Supremes will have to overturn this... but just think about this for a minute: the highest court in the land is going to spend time pondering whether a person has the right to wear a t-shirt. Never have such glorious ideals been delivered in such mundane packages...
"like C" - yes, the language. (There are obviously many other examples, but I figured that would be one that you would immediately relate to...)
El Borak -- it's worse than that:
"think about this ...[court pondering] whether a person has the right to wear a t-shirt..."
Check Black's Law dictionary for "person" (as opposed to someone who has God-given capital-R 'Rights'). A "person" is a legal fiction, a creation of the State, by definition.
A 'person' has no rights at all - including wearing t-shirts or anything else - just government-granted 'privileges'. They call 'em "civil liberties" to confuse the serfs.