Virginia prayer case is reversed / Wiccan in Chesterfield loses

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Charles, Apr 15, 2005.

  1. spmoran

    spmoran Member

    While the U.S. Bill of Rights is based in part on the English Bill of Rights (Locke, 1689), it provides for a broader level of protection that that of England. The English Bill of Rights specifically protects speech made inside Parliament from prosecution.

    That said, there are an awful lot of really screwy, and I think obscene, rulings by the Supreme Court regarding free speech. They don't seem to agree that "no law" means NO LAW, and have upheld federal, state and local actions, claiming that, in essence, Madison, Jay and Hamilton didn't "really mean it" when they used the word "no", or that "no law" isn't really a good option in all cases.

  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    The late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas also was a "no" means "no" advocate of free speech.

    A good Washingtonian! (Not D.C.; the OTHER Washington!)
  3. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    (1) Would the UK concept of freedom of speech protect an American student who goes to Britain to defend his dissertation and makes some off-the-cuff comment to the effect that all of the Windsors, the little old lady included, ought to be fired posthaste and made to get real jobs? Or would said individual find himself cast forthwith into some castle keep or mediaeval torture dungeon under some mediaeval law of treason?

    (2) In other words, are you telling me that, in free speech cases, some of the justices think no means yes? Gotta wonda what ol' Sandy and Ruthie think about that?
  4. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Maybe there's been a drastic shift in the center of balance of the court over there in the last 30 or 40 years, but if the Beatles could get away with what they said about the queen: "Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl...wanna tell her that I love her a lot but I gotta get her belly full of wine...someday I'm gonna make her mine..." or how about the Sex Pistols--take your pick of lyrics? No criminal charges there, they seemd to enjoy broad free speech protections vis-a-vis innuendo about the queen.
  5. Charles

    Charles New Member

    Wasn’t the Sex Pistols’ God Save the Queen banned in Britain?
  6. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    Really? I never knew that. Well, I stand corrected then if it was. Although the Beatles apparently got away with suggesting they'd like to get the queen drunk and have their way with her--pretty provocative for the 60s, pretty provocative today. If the Fab Four hadn't been so cute and boy-next-door looking--Johnny and Sid need not apply-- they'd not have gotten away with so much.
  7. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Lessee...the Royal Monobosum was still pretty young in the early '60s...
  8. Charles

    Charles New Member

    Supreme Court asked to hear witch case
  9. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I thought that the 4th Circuit pretty much followed established precedent.

    Oh, well, ACLU, with all thy faults, I love thee still (and continue to pay my dues).

    Ever notice that ACLU is an anagram for UCLA but also for CULA?

    Something kabbalistic going on there...
  10. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    I've paid ACLU dues for goin' on 30 years...

    ...but I secretly am kinda' okay with the 4th's decision.

    Moreover, I'm not as disturbed by that as I think I probably should be.

    Hmm. :confused:
  11. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Feminine form of a common term.
  12. dcv

    dcv New Member

    The first step is admitting you have a problem. :)
  13. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member


    CULA = City University of Los Angeles, an unaccredited school offering distance degree programs of somewhat debatable value to NON Californians, largely, so I understand, in the Orient.
  14. DTechBA

    DTechBA New Member

    Not necessarily too...

    Actually, demonstrative political speech which can be construed as incitement of illegal activity can be regulated. Not all political speech or activity is or has been protected. For example, I believe there is a decision upholding a city's right to deny a march permit to a supremiscist organization that desired to walk through a black neighborhood. The court decided that as the area was not traditionally an area used for political speech or marches that there could be no other reason for the location except to incite a response. Also, a Nazi party speech preaching the gospel to murder those they don't like would also be preventable. The right to free speech is not unlimited....
  15. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Wasn't there a decision a while back in which some white supremacists wanted to have a march and the "time, place, and manner" people issued a permit for a march on the friendly neighborhood local garbage dump?
  16. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member


    I don't know about THAT but when the Southern Poverty Law Center won its big judgment against the Aryan Nation and foreclosed on the latter's compound near Coeur d' Alene Idaho, the Aryans marched out through town in brownshirts and with neonazi banners a'snapping.

    RIGHT BEHIND them growled the town's two street sweeping trucks! :D

    When the City Manager was asked if this was a political statement, he said something like, "I would NEVER use public property to make a political statement!"

    I sniggered myself silly that night.
  17. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    In letter to Simpson, the county explained that the invocations "are traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition."

    The issue here wasn't the fact that there was an invocation, but that the invocation could be restricted to members of a particular religious tradition while members of all other traditions are excluded.

    I realize that by use of the term "Judeo-Christian", Jews are allowed in.

    But let's suppose that the word "Judeo-" had been omitted. Imagine that the letter stated that government meetings are traditionally begun with a specifically Christian invocation (however non-sectarian) and that Jewish prayers would therefore be excluded.

    I'd kind of like to hear your response to that. If you disagree with the ACLU's position in this matter, then you seem to be stuck in an unpleasant logical space:

    You will either have to to justify why Jews should have protections that other religious minorities are denied, or else you will be arguing for your own exclusion.

    The alternative to that dilemma is to support the ACLU.

    The irony of me instructing our liberal Democrats on what should be their own liberal principles isn't lost on me.
  18. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Ouch! I am on the horns of a DILEMMA!

    Well, no, not really. Like most Americans, my real values are conveniently identified by looking at where I actually put my MONEY, the Universal American Value.

    Sooo...the fact that I don't care for superstition in ANY form (including some forms of Jewish expression) will not keep me from funding the ACLU. Because, as I said, "with all her faults, I love her still." Well, "still" as in "even yet." I'm not talking about her moonshine. Though I haven't tasted it yet...I might actually love her still as well!! :D

    It's FRIDAY, friends, the beginning of Shabbat! Peace to all and a good restful weekend!
  19. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Or me! How entertaining! You are truly gifted in the bathymetry of the generally philosophical, Bill. I mean that. It's inspiring.

    Ha! :D Now that was funny.
  20. Charles

    Charles New Member

    Wiccan Priestess Loses High Court Appeal

Share This Page