Skip to Content


Federal judge ignores 1st Amendment in lieu of political correctness

The reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see anything in there that could legitimately be used as a defense of the handed down.

A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.

Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.

Sure wish I knew what kind of "irreparable harm" this would cause, I'm very curious what the judge thought was so crucial to protect them from that he felt "prohibiting the free speech" of students was the only option.

Federal Appeals gets it right - Dearborn violated free speech rights

This is a out of Michigan last year where four Christians were arrested for evangelism at an Arab festival. They were cleared of wrongdoing, but now the city may be on the hook for damages. via :

A federal appeals court today invalidated a leafleting ban in Dearborn, ruling the city violated a man's free-speech rights when he was blocked from trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

The 2-1 decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sends the case back to federal court in Detroit, where the city and Police Chief Ronald Haddad could be held liable for damages.

George Saieg, a Christian Arab American from California, sued Dearborn for being prevented in 2009 from handing out literature at the annual Arab International Festival on Warren Avenue. The festival will be held again next month.

The appeals court today said the city's ban is not reasonable and that the city and Haddad violated Saieg's First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

"Absent an injunction, Saieg will continue to suffer irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law," the court concluded.

In a statement, Mayor John B. O'Reilly Jr. said the decision focused on the openness of the public sidewalks in a festival setting.

Bill of Rights erosion continues - California court rules privacy law supersedes First Amendment

Recently, the against the 4th Amendment saying that even if the police illegally enter your home, you are not allowed to resist. Now, a California court has ruled that the Privacy Act supersedes the 1st Amendment protection for freedom of press.

The First Amendment does not protect the conduct of two conservative activists who secretly filmed an employee of the national community organizing group Acorn, a federal judge ruled. 

Juan Carlos Vera claimed James O'Keefe III and Hannah Giles visited his office in August 2009, and conspired to create video and audio tapes of him, even after asking him if their conversation would be confidential. The Acorn acronym stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

O'Keefe and Giles are best known for going undercover to discredit organizations like Acorn and Planned Parenthood. In one encounter, Giles posed as a prostitute and O'Keefe as a pimp to videotape an Acorn employee offering advice on how to run a tax-free brothel for underage sex workers.

Free speech is a good thing as long as it's controlled

Indiana Supreme Court decides against the 4th Amendment

UPDATE: Another article on the same topic.  Good reading, you can find more of this excerpted story .

One of the stories that always engages these listeners begins with a young lawyer, John Adams (later to become our second president), sitting in back of a King George III courtroom in Boston. Before judges in white wigs and scarlet robes, a Massachusetts lawyer, James Otis, was arguing for nearly five hours against British customs officers and soldiers breaking into colonists' homes and offices with warrants ("writs of assistance") they wrote themselves without going to a judge.

At home, in his notebook, Adams, describing Otis as "a flame of fire," declared on that day "American independence was then and there born. ... Every man of … (a) crowded audience appeared … to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain." ("Three Men of Boston," John R. Galvin, Brassey's)

On May 16, 2011, in these United States, eight justices, apparently unaware of the deep roots the Fourth Amendment has in our history, ruled in Kentucky v. King – as warned in the interpretation of the lone dissenter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – to suspend the Fourth Amendment:

Syndicate content

by Dr. Radut