first amendment

According to the Detroit News, the ACLU has a filed a brief in support of Terry Jones' First Amendment right to free speech and expression regarding his proposed protest in front of a Dearborn, Michigan mosque.

 

"The ACLU vehemently disagrees with the content of Pastor Jones' speech, but we feel equally strongly that if the First Amendment is tohave any meaning, it must mean that the government cannot suppress free speech because it, or anyone else, disagrees with that speech," ACLU Staff Attorney Jessie Rossman told The Detroit News today. "While we are not representing Pastor Jones, we filed this friend of court brief to help provide additional analysis with respect to the critical constitutional issues at stake here."

 

From the Washington Post:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that plans by a small church in Florida to burn the Muslim holy book are "outrageous" and "aberrational" and do not represent America.

...

"We want to be judged by who we are as a nation, not by something that is so aberrational and we will make that case as strongly as possible."

Burning books, including the Bible and Qur'an, is an American freedom protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So why is the Secretary of State in Obama's Administration speaking out against an act of freedom, an act that (as long as it isn't a Qur'an) her side of the aisle generally supports?

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the practice of the Utah Highway Patrol erecting 12-foot crosses as roadside memorials to fallen troopers is unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Republican appointee panel "conclude[d] that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity."

The reason they drew such a conclusion is because the crosses displayed the logo of the Utah Highway Patrol very prominently. I have not had time to read the opinion yet, so I may or may not comment later. However, the images of the crosses are on the final pages of the above linked PDF.

Recently, the Oklahoma Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill to allow elective courses on the Bible in public schools.  Now before you jump to conclusions, I don't think this is a bad thing.  A lot of American (and world) law is based off of principles taught in the Bible, and students may not fully grasp the principles without an opportunity to learn about them from their source.  However, students should also be afforded the same opportunity to take courses on other religious texts, including the Quran, on their roles in history and the development of the laws we have today.

 Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law on independent corporate expenditures for political campaigns are unconstitutional.  They also upheld the disclosure requirements 8-1.

Already we have people freaking out.  For some reason, these people believe that if a business chooses to organize itself as a corporation then it should have its free speech restricted by the government.  It's another example of a "corporation" being made the enemy.  What's ironic is that many of these who preach that corporations are bad and should be restricted in as many ways as possible are themselves corporations.  Who am I referring to?  The media, of course.

Here's an excerpt from the majority opinion: