New anti-homosexual legislation

[Tobie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX_igAIIm...re=related

[Nine]

Ive heard about this BS before. Time to whip out the "Christians are retarded" T-shirts? fairs fair is it not.

[Cinjin]

Thank GOD!!

I can't wait to show up with my signs so I can REALLY teach people about God's love...

[kılıç_mehmet]

Gay kids?
What?

[Nine]

Gay kids?
What?

Its not all that difficult to understand.

[twocompulsive]

I would have thought that
free speech was guaranteed
under The First Amendment so
why the need for more legislation
Obviously there is a thin line between
that and hate speech which is illegal but
who decides here now : it the individual who
the comment is directed at : the individual who
is making it : or is up to the state to decide : one
should not prohibit free speech even if is hate speech
as that is a slippery slope : we have this happening over
here as individuals have been arrested for posting of racist
comments on face book : I really believe one should have the
freedom to say what ever one wants : it is the only way to make
sure there is a level playing field : the point at which intervention can
become necessary is where words are translated into actions but long as
that particular line is not being crossed then let it be : but am aware of legal
considerations such as slander and libel and obscenity but if no one broke those
laws they would not exist in the first place : let freedom of speech be just that but
equally remember that even with absolute freedom of speech one must still accept all
moral responsibility for one s words and it is wise to engage brain before opening mouth

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't understand why the legislation is needed.


The right to give gross offence is already protected by the First Amendment to the US constitution.. Fred Phelps and his obnoxious spawn have been taking advantage of that right for years. US courts have upheld their rights.

Free speech is a very broad right in the US. Seems to me the proposed legislation is redundant. The full Wiki article is worth reading.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

School speech
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not cause undue interruptions of school activities. Justice Abe Fortas wrote,
[S]chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students...are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.
However, since 1969 the Supreme Court has placed a number of limitations on Tinker interpretations. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), the Court ruled that a student could be punished for his sexual-innuendo-laced speech before a school assembly and, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Court found that school newspapers enjoyed fewer First Amendment protections and are subject to school censorship. More recently, in Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) the Court ruled that schools could, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at school-sponsored events, even events away from school grounds, if students promote "illegal drug use."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amend...nstitution