Arab Christian Group Claims First Amendment Rights Denied On Public Property - in Michigan!

Arab Christian Group Claims First Amendment Rights Denied On Public Property - FOXNews.com

The article gives you the full story. Here's the abridged version:

Dearborn's big Arab International Festival. Attracted 300K+ people last month. City police tell Arab Christian Perspective group they cannot distribute literature on the sidewalks during the festival, but only at their rather limited booth. Temporary injunction denied.

ACP Group now suing city of Dearborn.

The usual complaints were reported: They littered the streets; they interfered with traffic; they were a nuisance. The group's views were maligned. The MSM feels obliged to do that, I suppose. But the legal ramifications were, surprisingly, quite clearly presented:

"...two First Amendment experts said sidewalks are usually considered "traditional public fora" in which distributing materials is considered protected speech, and the city's defense of its action does not appear constitutionally strong.

"It is a bedrock First Amendment principle that public sidewalks must generally be open for the exchange of information and ideas," said Tim Zick, a law professor at the College of William and Mary and author of "Speech Out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places."

"Distributing literature is, without question, a form of protected speech," Zick said. "Indeed, some of the earliest free-speech cases upheld the right to distribute literature on the public streets and sidewalks, to audiences that were not always pleased with the messages."

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said allowing religious groups to rent stalls did not preclude them from distributing literature on the sidewalks.

"The existence of an option to rent a stall doesn’t let the city take away a group’s right to leaflet," he said. "Leafleting can reach a broader audience than the stall can, since leafleters can walk around.

"Leafleting is also free. City of Ladue v. Gilleo, a 1994 Supreme Court precedent, makes clear that such cheap means of speech generally can’t be restricted on the grounds that the speaker can still use other, materially more expensive (and less effective) forms of speech," Volokh said.

Yes, indeed: It is quite clear that the decision of the city of Dearborn is one that violates the First Amendment rights of a Christian group. I wonder if Dearborn's leaders would have made the same decision if it were that group of al-Qaeda lovers who had requested permission to distribute leaflets?

Which of our current state leaders will stand up for Arab Christian Perspective?

Pro-Life Free Speech Denied in California!

According to this news article (pictures included), a seventh-grade girl in California was made to change her shirt when school administrators, at the very beginnning of the day, noticed that it contained a pro-life message. That day, April 29, had been designated as "National Pro-Life T-shirt Day" by the American Life League.

A picture is worth a thousand words, especially in this case. You can view pictures of the T-shirt here.

The storyline is the usual plot: Student wears T-shirt disdained by left-wing school administrators, is rudely told to change it (and does). Parent threatens lawsuit (and in this case, lawsuit goes forward).

There are two main issues to note here. First, anyone walking around a typical middle or high school today will notice a variety of T-shirts with advertising slogans, sports teams, brand names, artwork, and other content on them. Most of them are not the least bit offensive (not liking some other kid's sports team does not count!), but quite frankly, occasionally they are. They might contain images of some perverse "artist" or "rock star," or encourage behaviors that are unwise, rebellious, or immoral. [Note: Schools generally ban—as they should—T-shirts which promote activities that are illegal for minors, such as smoking or drinking.]

A T-shirt containing two photos of living human beings and which implies that abortion kills them is neither offensive nor inaccurate. To ban such a T-shirt while allowing so many others is hypocritical, and constitutes allowing "free speech" for some students and not for others. [Note #2: I would have no problem if a school decided to ban all T-shirts or even all T-shirts with any kinds of words/messages; this is consistent, and part of an appropriate dress code.]

The second and greater problem is the realization—still present in America after all these years—that there are those who hate the pro-life message and want to kill it. Free speech does not interest these people except to the extent that it allows them to speak. They care not for what is right and good.

The article concludes with this insightful quote by the mother's lawyer:

First Amendment attorney William Becker, who represents Amador, disagreed that the shirt could be seen as containing inappropriate messages.

"The message of the T-shirt is that life is sacred," he said. "One would be very hard pressed to find anything wrong with that particular idea, except that some people do object to the political message."

Can't We Even Talk About Guns in a College Class?

Last October, a student at Central Connecticut State University was called to come to the police station on the evening after he, and two classmates, gave an oral presentation about a relevant media issue. Their choice? Presenting their view that had students and staff at Virginia Tech been allowed to carry guns, the bloodshed which happened in 2007 would have been reduced.

Apparently the professor was "concerned" for the "safety" of the campus community...and decided that calling the police about this student was the appropriate thing to do.

The student went to the police station as requested and was asked about his guns. He lives off-campus and keeps the guns in a safe (guns are not permitted on the campus). No further action was taken.

Let's apply a smidgen of logic to this scenario.

• Point: The professor thought this student was a potential threat to others because he discussed guns.
• Point: The professor was concerned (scared?) about safety.
• Suggested Conclusion: If the professor had been carrying a gun herself, would she have felt safer??

Never mind the fact that on the secular college campuses of today, where free speech typically means that any kind of atheist, filthy, or decadent cant is allowed to flourish, we have here a student who expressed a reasonable opinion—and had to go to the police station!?!

Will the ACLU be rushing to this young man's side to defend his actions?? Read the full story here.