Monday, March 08, 2010



College demands return of campus speech code

In good Leftist style, they just LOVE censorship
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has begun reviewing a request by the Los Angeles Community College District for permission to reactivate speech restrictions under which one professor called a Christian student a "fascist b----rd" for discussing a moral conviction against homosexual marriage.

After erupting angrily in class, the professor, John Matteson, then told the student to "Ask God what your grade is."

A hearing was held today before the appellate court on the college district's request to remove a preliminary injunction imposed by a lower court that prohibited enforcement of the speech code – which was found unconstitutional – while a lawsuit against the school moves forward.

According to the Alliance Defense Fund, if the policy is restored, it will allow the college to trump student free-speech rights protected by the First Amendment while the case is litigated.

The case erupted shortly after the presidential election in 2008, when Matteson censored and threatened to expel student Jonathan Lopez following a speech he gave about his Christian faith during an open-ended assignment in a public speaking class.

According to ADF, after Lopez gave the dictionary definition of marriage and recited two Bible verses, Matteson interrupted and ended Lopez's presentation mid-speech, calling him and anyone who voted yes on Proposition 8 – the California marriage amendment – a "fascist b----rd" in front of the class.

"Refusing to grade the assigned speech, the professor wrote on Lopez's speech evaluation form, 'Ask God what your grade is,' and later threatened to expel the student," ADF reported.

In the ADF lawsuit against the college district, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an injunction, prohibiting the district from enforcing its speech code as the case moves forward. In September, the court denied LACCD's motion to reconsider the order, asserting the policy "undeniably targets the content of expression" and is "unconstitutionally overbroad by sweeping within its reach a substantial amount of protected speech."

Source

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's probably fair to assume this "professor" is gay, but has he/she/it been charged with hate speech, and why not? That would certainly be the case had a gay student been insulted and humiliated in that way. And why do the laws of God, Man, Nature, and Reason not exist in Mexifornia?

Anonymous said...

Christians and Moslems think they can insult homosexuals under the cover of religious conviction and assumed respect for religion; but if gays retaliate they are called "hateful" - ??
Did gays ever criticize religious bigotry before the latter insulted gays - I think not. Gays wouldn't ever comment on religion if certain religious groups kept their dogmas to themselves!

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:34
Where do you see that this student insulted homosexuals? He stated his belief that there is no such thing as homosexual marriage and cited his references for his belief. That is not insulting anyone. The so-called professor was the insulting one. Even without the biblical references, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage, never has been, never will be.

Anonymous said...

I think not.

Obviously.

Gays wouldn't ever comment on religion if certain religious groups kept their dogmas to themselves!

People should only be able to speak and offer an opinion if and only if gays agree with them?

How nice.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:34, you find Christians and Muslims religious beleifs to be insulting to gays? Could it be your own lifestyle that's actually insulting you? Fact is, most of the worlds religions see homosexuality as an aberration. Are they all wrong?

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:34
Stercorem pro cerebro habes.

Anonymous said...

Are all religions wrong? Well they can't all be right as they contradict each other so much; and yes they could all be wrong on any of their dogmas.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:12 wrote, "Religions call the retaliation "hateful" but their own bigotry they call religious conviction."

And in most cases, gays call the original religions assertion as "hateful" so they reply with their own hateful retaliation. The difference is that many Christians use the Bible as a reference to back up their claims while gays rely on their personal feelings.

On one hand, gays want Christians to provide tangible evidence to support their claims, yet when they do provide it, gays reject it.

The Bible is the most critiqued literary work in history, and it is accepted by scholars and historians (both Biblical and secular) as being an extremely valid and valuable literary work. Huge portions have been historically substantiated, and much is left to speculation, but the fact remains that its use is often summarily rejected by most gays as a basis for belief.

Anonymous said...

Hate the Sin, love the sinner !!!

Anonymous said...

3:52 AM - that double-speak could be in "1984".

Anonymous said...

The professor is an employee of the government. His actions are a violation of the student's civil rights. He should be terminated and damages awarded from the university to prevent such violations in the future.

Wes said...

The professor may have tenure so that he can express his opinion freely on school subjects, but tenure nor the 1st ammendment give him the right to abuse his students in this way! Colleges and Universities no longer teach students to think for themselves, they teach them what to think. If students are not allowed to engage in "Hate Speach", why are the professors allowed to do this?

Anonymous said...

3:25 AM - the Bible cannot be a self-justifying source. For the accounts of Hebrew history in the Bible there may well be some archaelogical evidence; it would be surprising if there were not (although there are doubts about eg. the size of the exodus from Egypt, etc. and whether most of the Hebrews were in fact the former inhabitants of Canaan, etc., etc.); but the claims of miracles, and God speaking to prophets, etc. can't be verified of course - and remains for believers to believe in (and thus why should anyone else!).

Robert said...

"never will be homosexual marriage" - ? Maybe not in socially backward America, but there are more enlightened countries where gay marriage is possible.

True that some countries have decided to recognize "gay marriage" as if it were genuine, and we can see the disastrous results that came about because of it.

Anonymous said...

Well... that's very interessting but honestly i have a hard time determining it... wonder what others have to say..

Anonymous said...

Robert - did you read the first comment to that strange article, with a good criticism of it - the main premise of which is that gays marrying will somehow deter straight people from marrying. It's another case of blaming gays for society's ills including apparently the behavior of heterosexuals. Have gays replaced jews as the traditional scapegoats?

Anonymous said...

3:48 AM said, "The Bible cannot be a self-justifying source."
It's not. Scholars both secular and non-secular hold it in extremely high regard compared to other literary works of its time and throughout history.

And then he said, "but the claims of miracles, and God speaking to prophets, etc. can't be verified of course - and remains for believers to believe in (and thus why should anyone else!)."

No, it can't be 100% verified, but neither can the existence pretty much any person or action in the past. Prove that Abraham Lincoln actually said the Gettysburg Address. You can't because you only have historical records and hearsay. Prove that Julius Caesar actually existed. You can't because you only have historical records?

Anonymous said...

If a written record said Abraham Lincoln performed a miracle and several of his friends said they witnessed it, it would be no more credible than if my sister said she was abducted by aliens yesterday.

Robert said...

did you read the first comment to that strange article, with a good criticism of it?

Thanks for pointing out the comments. Philip Chandler (the commenter) indeed adds information about cultural differences between Scandinavians and Americans that can also explain the higher incidence of illegitimacy, and its chain reaction, following those governments giving essentially their stamp of approval to redefining marriage. It would be interesting to see the rates of illegitimacy and its effects before and after Canada, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, and South Africa (particularly Spain and South Africa, as they are least likely to share the Scandinavian cultural attitudes Philip C. points out) redefined marriage in those countries and counted same-sex couplings as marriage.

The third commenter, Michael, also makes a valid point - if the term marriage gets associated with activities most people naturally and instinctively find repulsive, people will come up with another term to distinguish the desirable from the undesirable (perhaps "genuine marriage" vs. "counterfeit marriage"). That also reminded me of some other article whose lesson was to the effect of, "Consider the marginal case, even though you are not the marginal case." Applying that lesson, if marriage does get redefined down to merely coupling, it wouldn't be too difficult to think up plausible marginal cases such as two young lovers who are too poor to afford a marriage ceremony, they have absorbed the lesson that there's really nothing special about marriage anyway, and decide they will just do without. Even if there isn't much effect on traditional marriage, there are other, more insidious, factors attached to the movement to recognize same-sex coupling as marriage.

As the original article that links to the other link points out (with other links towards the end), what the gays are really after is forcing people to approve of their lifestyle, even though most people's survival instincts kick in with the emotion of disgust when exposed to it. And as has already been foreshadowed by the filing of nuisance suits against individuals who "fail" to show outright moral approval of the gay/homosexual/sodomite (pick your term) lifestyle by cheerfully going against their human nature and associating with those whose lifestyle disgusts them, such lawsuits are intended as the means to enforce an unpopular policy against the consent of the vast majority of the governed, using the force of government. Such a course of action puts the homosexual activists, and the government if it goes along, into a state of predatory war against the people. That's what most people instinctively sense in their bones, even if they don't know how to put it into words.

Anonymous said...

Robert - I can see somebody like you presenting a similar verbose post justifying opposition to inter-racial marriage some years ago (and perhaps you still would).

Robert said...

Only if the preponderance of the evidence I knew about pointed that way.