No speech by top student after being told to strike out religion

We read:

"Bayonne High School valedictorian Jeremy Jerschina had wanted to give a heartfelt speech at his graduation ceremony on Wednesday.

A religious young man bound for the Christian school Calvin College in Michigan this fall, 18-year-old Jerschina said that to speak from the heart as he addressed his graduating class, he had to speak to God as well.

But Principal Richard Baccarella and the Bayonne Board of Education would not let him speak if he included a prayer - so he didn't speak at all.

Source

So one young man expressing his faith in God is the establishment of a religion?

Update:

Someone has pointed out that praying is speaking. So it should be protected under the First Amendment.

That Good Old Race Card Again

We read:

""Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington said racism was a factor in his firing from the hit ABC series after he twice used an anti-gay slur. Washington, who initially used the epithet during an onset clash with a co-star, told Newsweek magazine that "someone heard the booming voice of a black man and got really scared and that was the beginning of the end for me."

Source

He might manage a comeback yet but I am sure he will never forget that homosexuals trump blacks in the Leftist hierarchy of privilege.

Great News for Free Speech on Radio

We read:

"The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The vote count was partly a testament to the influence that radio hosts wield in many congressional districts. It was also a rebuke to Democratic senators and policy experts who have voiced support this week for regulating talk radio.

Source

SCOTUS Defends Political Free Speech for Students

It was Leftist speech that SCOTUS defended in this case but it offers a very useful precedent for political speech at schools and colleges generally:

"Putting its recent ruling on student speech into practice, the Supreme Court on Friday rejected a school district's appeal of a ruling that it violated a student's rights by censoring his anti-Bush T-shirt.

A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glass-but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the "chicken-hawk-in-chief" who was engaged in a "world domination tour."

Williamstown Middle School Principal Kathleen Morris-Kortz said the images violated the school dress code, which prohibits clothing that promotes the use of drugs or alcohol.

An appeals court said the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt. On Monday, the court said schools could regulate student expression if it advocated illegal drug use. Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that schools could not censor political speech.

Source

Drug advocacy is not political? So they tell us. I know many libertarians and Leftists who would violently disagree. But we must be thankful for small mercies. The rules now appear to be that non-drug political speech is protected.

More detail here. Apparently it is OK to mention illegal drugs (cocaine in this case) if you depict the President as using them! That is not encouragement of drug use, apparently. I guess that the Bush-haters would see it that way so maybe it makes some slight sense.

Return of the Gag

I have put our old friend back at the head of this blog.

Feedback (positive or negative) welcome

Free Speech Victory in Washington State

We read:

"A unanimous Washington state supreme court ruling, issued this morning, reversed a lower court ruling that held radio commentary by Seattle's KVI-570's Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson made "in-kind" contributions when they promoted an anti-gas tax voter initiative on their shows in 2005.

This is all a bit hard to follow at first but it is a case of politicians attacking a radio show with the claim that political comments made on the show are a form of advertising and should be treated as such -- with all the restrictions that implies. It was a heavy attack on free speech but the State court unanimously gave it the boot. The judges said:

"Today we are confronted with an example of abusive prosecution by several local governments. San Juan County and the cities of Seattle, Auburn, and Kent (hereinafter Municipalities) determined to file a legal action ostensibly for disclosure of radio time spent discussing a proposed initiative. This litigation was actually for the purpose of restricting or silencing political opponents and was quickly dismissed after the filing deadline for the initiative

Source

The Coulter/Edwards Confrontation on MSNBC

Dat ole double-standard again:

Elizabeth Edwards is complaining bitterly that Ann Coulter wished her gorgeous husband dead in a terrorist attack.

Both she and TV host Chris Mattews have somehow neglected to mention that Coulter's statement was in response to Bill Maher's saying that he wished Dick Cheney would die in a terrorist attack.

Coulter's point was that it must be permissible to say such a thing, since it was given a pass when Maher said it.

Rules on Campaign Ads Eased by High Court

We read:

"The Supreme Court yesterday substantially weakened restrictions on the kinds of television ads that corporations and unions can finance in the days before an election, providing special interest groups with the opportunity for a far more expansive role in the 2008 elections."

Source

A small victory for free speech.

Supreme Court Protects Faith-Based Subsidies from Suit

We read:

"The Supreme Court on Monday closed the courthouse door on a lawsuit challenging the Bush administrations use of taxpayer money to support its Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives."

Source

Angelina, Aladdin, 24, Racist?

We read:

"The front of the Washington Post Style section on Saturday was dominated by two features on Hollywood stereotyping. At the bottom was Teresa Wiltz suggesting that Angelina Jolie playing Afro-Cuban Mariane Pearl in "A Mighty Heart" is somehow comparable to blackface minstrel shows. But that's not as odd as the top story by William Booth on stereotyped Arab villains, illustrated by the cartoon image of Jafar, the villainous vizier in the Disney cartoon "Aladdin." Earth to the Post: everyone in "Aladdin," heroes and villains, is Arab.

Booth's story actually only raised the issue of the opening song lyrics of "Aladdin," which joked about vicious ear-slicing barbarians, which the Arab-American activists successfully pressed Disney to remove. After that scrubbing, I imagine the children would also hear about "Ali Baba and the Forty Upstanding Merchants." The star of the Booth piece, retired professor Jack Shaheen, also deplored the Fox drama "24" as "the worst of smears" for portraying American Arabs as the terrorist next door.

Source

OK for a Leftist Icon to Use "Homophobic" Language?

We read:

"Gore Vidal is up in arms over a new play that imagines him being sexually attracted to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Edmund White's "Terre Haute," which recently finished a successful run in Britain, involves the relationship between a thinly veiled, Vidal-like writer named James and a McVeigh-like killer, Harrison.

Vidal, 81, told the London Observer: "Edmund White will yet be feeling the wrath of my lawyers. It's unethical and vicious to make it very clear that this old faggot writer is based on me, and that I'm madly in love with Timothy McVeigh, who I never met."

Source

Ann Coulter was condemned all over the net for using the same word. Listen for the silence about Vidal using it. And Vidal is using it in an abusive rather than a descriptive way, unlike Coulter. And Isaiah Washington lost his TV job for using the word too.

Strange Australian Rulings



We read:

"Even a child knows green monsters do not really exist, and UFOs do not fly around our cities, right? Wrong, says the Advertising Standards Bureau, which has upheld complaints against a McDonald's television commercial, because it encourages children to accept lifts from space aliens.

Scantily clad pole-dancing mothers, on the other hand, are acceptable vehicles for advertising fast-food chicken, the bureau's board has ruled, despite numerous complaints that described the ad as pornographic, degrading, sexist and idiotic......

Defending multiple complaints against its ad, another fast-food chain successfully argued the level of nudity used "was essential to ensuring authenticity". The ad shows a topless pole-dancing mother using fictitious "Nando-fix" skin patches and gum to control her craving for Nando's chicken....

The board of the Advertising Standards Bureau agreed, ruling that pole dancing was "a popular form of exercise" and "was not incompatible with family values" [Those board members sure sound like groovy guys!]

Source

There is a video of the alleged "family values" ad here

Nando's chicken IS pretty good, by the way.

SCOTUS Discovers Previously Unknown Provision in the Constitution

We read:

"A US high school student who was suspended for unfurling a banner saying "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" did not have his rights violated, a divided US Supreme Court ruled today, in its first major decision on student free-speech rights in nearly 20 years. The high court's conservative majority ruled that a high school principal in Juneau, Alaska, did not violate the student's constitutional free-speech rights by confiscating the banner and then suspending him.

Student Joseph Frederick says the banner's language was meant to be nonsensical and funny, a prank to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by the school in January 2002. But school officials say the phrase "bong hits" refers to smoking marijuana. Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days because she said the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy.

Mr Frederick, 18, had been standing on a public sidewalk across the street from the school when Ms Morse grabbed his banner and crumpled it. Students had been allowed out of class to watch the event.

The majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts said the court agreed with Ms Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. Justice Roberts, who was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush, said a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event when it is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

Source

Now where do I find that exemption concerning illegal drug use in the Constitution?

Racism Here, Racism there, Racism Everywhere



A black American singer is touring Australia and was booked to appear on an Australian TV talk and entertainment show hosted by Rove McManus (Second pic above):

"US rapper Xzibit has walked out on a scheduled appearance on Rove Live after what he claims were racist comments from production staff.

After an apparent misunderstanding, the rapper posted an entry on his blog titled "Rove the Racist", saying the "sh*t was wack" when an argument started over a plan to have him sing with Michael Buble.

A production crew member told Xzibit that the show's audience wouldn't stand for a full minute of rapping and that the segment could only last 42 seconds, though the production company denies this happened.

According to the artist, the crew member then told him: "you know we came a long way just having you on the program".

Xzibit took this to be a racist remark and immediately "went out the front door hopped in my sh*t and rolled out", which presumably means he got into his car and left.

Source

I must confess to the personal feeling that Australian TV screens were better off without him.

No Separation of Church and State when it Comes to Muslims

And who says so? That great protector of separation -- the ACLU

"Muslim leaders in Metro Detroit have decided not to raise private money to pay for two footbaths at a local college campus now that the American Civil Liberties Union has said the plan doesn't pose constitutional problems.

The University of Michigan-Dearborn's plan to spend $25,000 on the footbaths was criticized on conservative blogs and radio shows this month. Critics said using public money for the project would violate the First Amendment, which says governments can't favor or subsidize religions.

Muslims are required to wash body parts, including feet, up to five times daily before prayers.

Source

I guess Islam is now America's Established Church. There are some extended comments on the matter here

ACLU to hand out cameras to monitor police

For once I heartily agree with the ACLU. In many States it is illegal to photograph police -- leading to many abuses. Where cameras are allowed, much police misbehaviour has been caught. Libertarian Radley Balko gives some of the history of it. It's not only blacks that the police abuse

"St. Louis - Police who work the Fairground neighborhood will soon be under video surveillance by the people they serve, an activist group said Wednesday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri first announced in December 2005 its intention to outfit residents to record city officers.

The program, Project Vigilant, has spent one and a half years in development.

Officials with the local ACLU chapter have said that city officers often mistreat and target blacks and that it hopes cameras would deter police abuse and smooth out police-neighborhood relations.

Source

My only objection to the above is that it is tokenism. If the ACLU were serious about reining in rogue police, they would be campaigning to have legal bans on photographing police overturned in the many States where they apply. In the above case, they have chosen one State where it is legal to photograph police.

Non-juror's "hanging" remark leads to retrial

Anything to stop a black thug being fried:

"The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a death row inmate Tuesday because an alternate juror at his murder trial told co-workers he was going to "get me a good rope so when we hang him it won't break."

In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the remarks, by a white juror trying a black defendant, evoked the image of lynch law and suggested the juror was racially biased and had prejudged the outcome.

Though the juror said he made none of the remarks to other panelists and did not deliberate on the verdict, other jurors might have been tainted, the court found.

Source

The guy who made the remark had nothing to do with the verdict nor did he make the remark to any of those who DID decide the verdict -- but the verdict was still "tainted".

What if all "not guilty" verdicts that come from juries that include a Leftist were challenged? Leftists after all believe that everything is due to "poverty" and that no-one is responsible for their own actions. That sounds like bias to me. Would such a verdict be "tainted"? And what if one juror had a friend who believed all that Leftist stuff? Surely that would "taint" the verdict too?

A lot of scope for overturning jury verdicts these days, it would seem. Maybe it might be possible to get O.J. Simpson yet!

Michigan: Whites Must not Look Black

If "black is beautiful", why not?

"While most of the crowd that lined the sidewalks last week for the 59th annual Dexter Memorial Day parade came to celebrate and remember, some left disgusted and angry. The source of their rage was a float that at best wasn't appropriate for this kind of event and at worst was racist and offensive....

The offending float, sponsored by David Myers Photography in Dexter, consisted of a red pickup truck with a platform float hitched to the truck's back end.... All of that was overshadowed by two female dancers dressed in blackface style makeup with pitch black face paint on exposed skin, wigs that appeared to emulate the racial qualities of an African-American's hair and pink lipstick. The paint also was noticeably absent from the women's palms. ...

To Diskin and others, it appeared as if someone was paying homage to a theatrical style known for playing a role in shaping racial stereotypes that remain to this day. In 1993, former "Cheers" star Ted Danson caused a firestorm of controversy after appearing in "blackface" at a Friars Club roast.

According to Myers, the float had nothing to do with race, but instead was a spoof of commercials for Apple's portable iPod music player. In the commercials, dark silhouetted characters dance against bright-colored backgrounds, with only their distinctive physical characteristics being their body shape and a pair of prominent white iPod corded earphones.

Source

So any hint of depicting blacks is to mock them. Interesting view. Sounds racist to me.

SCOTUS bans Free Speech about Athletics

We read:

"The Supreme Court said Thursday that athletic associations can enforce limits on recruiting high school athletes without violating coaches' free speech rights. The high court ruled in a longstanding dispute between the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association the private school Brentwood Academy.

The school challenged a rule of the TSSAA, which governs high school sports in the state. The association bars schools from contacting prospective students about their sports programs.

In a unanimous ruling, the court said that 'hard-sell tactics directed at middle school students could lead to exploitation, distort competition between high school teams and foster an environment in which athletics are prized more highly than academics.'

Games have rules, Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court. 'It is only fair that Brentwood follow them.'"

Source

Game rules trump the U.S. Constitution??

Aussies Must not Call Aussies Aussies?

"Aussie" (pronounced "ozzie") is an abbreviation for "Australian" and is a common way for Australians to refer to one-another. It is however most used as shorthand for "Australians of Anglo-Celtic background" -- as the latter expression is a tad cumbersome. It DOES tend to imply that a person has all the traditions and attitudes that are typically Australian.

So when an Aussie participant -- Andrew Temmett -- in the Australian version of the "Big Brother" show used the term "Aussie" to refer to "Australians of Anglo-Celtic background", various "sensitive" souls accused him of being "racist". The show has on it a number of Australians who are not of Anglo-Celtic background and Temmett implied that they were not "Aussies". He was just using ordinary Aussie speech in doing so and was not being in any way malicious.

So he was accused of being racist. I suppose he COULD have said "Australians of Anglo-Celtic background" but on Big Brother?? It probably would not have helped anyway as the sensitive souls seem to believe that there should NEVER be any reference to ANY racial origins -- except if you are praising a racial minority, of course.

Perhaps I should note that most "Australians of non-Anglo-Celtic background" are Asian and are in general very successful members of Australian society. Being an "Aussie" is not a reference to any real-life superiority in any respect. Marriages and other relationships between Aussie males and women of Asian descent are also quite common. My own son is in such a relationship -- with my emphatic approval.

Details here.