FYI: Washington Post Article on This Term and Next Term

link

Court Decides Two Free Speech Cases

From How Appealing blog:

"Freedom of Speech Is Buttressed as U.S. Supreme Court Caps Nine-Month Term": Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News has this report. And in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that "Court Conservatives Prevail; Videogame, Campaign-Finance Rulings Cap Term That Broadened Free Speech."

Today's Endorsement Controversy

From ReligionClause blog:

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Atheists Complain Over Renaming of Brooklyn Street As "Seven In Heaven"

Monday's Brooklyn Paper reports that American Atheists has complained over the renaming of a portion of a Brooklyn, New York street to honor seven firefighters who were among those killed at the Twin Towers on 9-11.  The new street sign in honor of the men reads "Seven In Heaven Way." American Atheist spokesman David Silverman said: "It’s improper for the city to endorse the view that heaven exists. It links Christianity and heroism." Community Board 6 member Tom Miskel responded: "Almost every religion has some form of heaven. It’s not just specific to Christianity."

Why Would NBC Even Think To Do This?

BETHESDA, Md. -- NBC issued an on-air apology Sunday for omitting the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance during its coverage of golf's U.S. Open.

The words were edited out of a clip of children reciting the oath -- a move immediately noted by viewers, who took to Twitter and various blogs to voice their anger, the Huffington Post reported.

In a statement during the broadcast, NBC commentator Dan Hicks said, "We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open Championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation's capital for the third time.

"Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/19/nbc-apologizes-for-omitting-under-god-from-pledge-during-us-open-broadcast/#ixzz1PuqT3lY0

Both Fridays (the 24 and the 1st)?

Someone suggested in the comments that we take both Fridays off (both the 24th and the 1st) and make up the 100 minutes by starting a little early and ending a little late.

I have already gone over about 20 minutes (I love talking about the First Amendment and sometimes its hard to stop--sorry)!

So, I figure if we start 10 minutes early (i.e. at 11:20) and end 10 minutes late (i.e. 1:20) Monday through Thursday next week we will have out 80 minutes made up.

It is up to you all. I can go either way.

Let me know what you all think tomorrow first thing.

Rick Duncan

No Class Friday June 17

As I announced in class, one of our two scedulaed class cancellations will be this Friday, June 17.

I have not decided on the second Friday off. Should it be June 24? Or July 1?

Help me out.

For Thursday June 9

Read assignment three plus read the Allegheny County case linked as part of Assignment 4.

Cheers, Rick Duncan

For Our First Class--Please Comment on This Hypo

Assume that a local public high school puts up a large "gay pride--stop homophobia" poster on the wall in the front hallway in order to celebrate Gay Pride Month.

A few conservative religious students and their parents, offended by this poster and its ideological message, complain to the school district's superintendent, who orders the school's principal to take down the display.

How should the Constitution handle a case like this?

Should students and parents offended by the poster have a right to demand it be removed from the public schools? Suppose they claim that it makes them feel like outsiders in the school, because the school's poster amounts to a public endorsement of the idea that the dissenters' religious views about human sexuality and marriage are wrong and perhaps even immoral?

Or should the law tell the dissenters "if you don't like the poster, then avert your eye and don't look at it."

Should GLBT students and allies who want to be able to view this poster have a free speech right, as a willing audience for the poster, to demand that the poster not be removed under fire to appease dissenters who are offended by the poster?

Or should the federal courts stay out of this matter and allow the political process to decide which posters may be displayed and which may be removed at the behest of those who are offended?

Who are the heroes of this hypothetical and who are the villains? Explain your conclusions.

Please feel free to write your answers as comments right here on the blog.

Anonymous comments are fine; just be civil and respectful of others.

New Free Speech Case

From Yahoo news:

Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

 

 

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. – A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.
The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.

"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.

"Nobody is stopping him from talking about father's rights. ... but a person can't invade someone's private life."

For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.

"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."

Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal.