A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled against the First Amendment rights of students in Boyd County, Ky, to express beliefs about the morality of homosexual behavior, prompting an appeal to the full appeals court.
At the instigation of the American Civil Liberties Union, Boyd County High School allowed a "Gay Straight Alliance" club, and the school district instituted a "diversity" program mandated for all students.
As reported by WorldNetDaily, a video about "diversity" prepared by the school addressed those who might have moral objections to homosexual behavior: "But here is the kicker, just because you believe, just because you don't like them, just because you disagree with them, just because you believe they are wrong, wholeheartedly, absolutely, they are wrong. Just because you believe that does not give you permission to say anything about it. It doesn't require that you do anything. You just respect, you just exist, you continue, you leave it alone. There is not permission for you to point it out to them."
The video also prescribed punishment for such speech, as described in the petition filed by lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing student Timothy Morrison, who has filed a lawsuit against the school: "In both the Code of Conduct and the video, the students were told that violating the district policy could result in a suspension, with 'a possibility of court referral and local law enforcement agency notified ..."
"Students were specifically told by the defendant that if they insulted a person by saying that homosexual behavior was wrong, they could face dire consequences."
One Kentucky paper editorialized in favor of the appeals court decision, claiming that "Morrison was never disciplined for violating the policy or even accused of violating it. Thus, the appeals court said Morrison failed to show he was harmed by the policy."
However, according to the ADF, the ruling that "chilled speech is not an injury-in-fact" is erroneous: "Other circuits have held, both implicitly and explicitly, that a chill on an individual's ability to exercise his or her right to free speech is a constitutional injury-in-fact. In our case, the 'government regulation' was a direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment rights. Students should not be forced to subject themselves to criminal prosecution before they can seek judicial relief from unconstitutional speech policies."
Let's hope and pray that, in its ruling, the full appeals court will uphold the right of free expression of all citizens--including those who object to homosexual behavior on moral grounds.
Comments (6)
I would be more concerned if I had ever seen a single good argument that homosexuality is immoral. I see a lot of bad ones, ranging from 'God said so, that settles it' to the laughably bad 'if everyone was gay, humanity would be extinct' to the infuriating 'gays are a danger to children.' There is even the almost-valid 'Homosexual activity is harmful to health,' which would be acceptable if not based on statistical distortions and lies. So far though, I havn't seen a single good argument.
May 3, 2008 5:28 AM | Comment Permalink
Though perhaps not obvious to a citizen from the U.K. the American Constitutional liberty of free speech is a strongly embraced virtue. This liberty is why we have equal legal footing for verbal speech( as well as the printed word) that support or disagree with our government, AND for those opinions which may be not in the majority, but of a minority of public opionion.
In the case of homosexual sex, males who choose to participate in this activity have a significantly higher rate infectious abcesses requireing medical treatment of antibiotics. The particular physical attribute leading to this reality is that that the male "waste" orifice used for male homosexual sex, is not nearly as ideal as the female sex organ due to the delicate structure in the male.
Irregardless of the anatomical facts produced, the bottom line conclusion is that "free speech" is a endeared American liberty and censoring an individuals right is prohibited except in the cases of directly producing harm to others...This is why if you visit the US you will see a multitude of independant news agencys instead of a solo state sponsored BBC
best regards
and cheers
May 10, 2008 3:06 AM | Comment Permalink
Suricou, the "Homosexual activity is harmful to health" argument isn't valid at all. The statement implies that homosexuality in and of itself is harmful. That's not true, it's homosexual promiscuity that is harmful to health (and the same thing applies, of course, to heterosexual promiscuity).
May 11, 2008 5:43 AM | Comment Permalink
I don't think it's statistical distortion when the Center for Disease Control reports that AIDS is primarily spread in the gay community. Why is God said so a bad argument? What are your arguments that homosexual behavior is wonderful and should be promoted. What is your argument for expression of objection based on moral beliefs is wrong.
May 13, 2008 5:11 PM | Comment Permalink
What is all the fuss about HOMOSEXUALITY!
Did NOT GOD Create EVERYTHING?
IS NOT GOD OMNI POTENT?
Then GOD HAS HAD A HAND IN CREATING HOMOSEXUALS!
PERIOD!
May 17, 2008 3:43 PM | Comment Permalink
That's because the student was committing a hate crime — not a civil argument. WAKE UP!
May 18, 2008 11:03 AM | Comment Permalink