Free Speech Zone Shut Down In Polk County
Posted on January 23, 2006
Hat tip: Rhymes with Right
Isn’t all of America a free speech zone? Well, not if you are afraid of being sued for your expressions. Polk County created this “free speech zone” to begin with to protect themselves from ACLU lawsuits, but the ACLU would have none of this. Since there was nativity scenes being presented, they went after it anyway.
Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus won’t be making any more legal appearances on the lawn of Polk County’s administration building.
The County Commission on Jan. 11 voted unanimously to close the “free-speech zone” that it created less than one year ago.The free-speech zone was implemented last year after a church group in December 2004 built a Nativity scene on the lawn of the Neil Combee Administration Building without county permission. In the zone, individuals and groups were allowed to express themselves with displays or other forms of expression.
In late 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union and two co-defendants filed suit against the county over policies in the zone they think are unconstitutional.
After the suit was filed, county officials suspended some of the free-speech-zone regulations as part of a temporary agreement with the ACLU.Source
guess the ACLU only supports freedom of for the speech they like. Commies, Nazis, and Klansmen — shout it out loud. Christians — Shut the f*&% up!
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
24 Responses to “Free Speech Zone Shut Down In Polk County”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
These “free speech zones” should all be shut down. The entire country is a free speech zone.
I agree Actus. Ironic they were created from the fear of ACLU threats.
To the ACLU and the loony left, free speech is like diversity.
Free Speech Policy: We will say what we wish, you will say what we wish.
Diversity Policy: We want all kinds of diversity, but not diversity of thought or actions– you will conform.
“The entire country is a free speech zone.”
Tell that to the ACLU, who have nothing better to do than rob Christians of their free speech in almost every forum.
I recall very well that the ACLU backed the free-speech rights of the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie, IL in 1978, an event immortalized in the movie “The Blues Brothers”.
They took a lot of heat from their own members for this, but free speech is free speech.
Or is that little historical fact too inconvenient for you?
The ACLU also frequently supports students when overreaching school administrators try to stop them from expressing their religious beliefs at school. Bill O’Reilly made a big deal about one case involving Christmas candy canes, but he got the facts wrong — the ACLU was on the side of the student’s religious expression, not against it.
I guess that too is a little inconvenient for you.
Yes Phil, in the liberal world one or two good stances on important issues make all of their crookeds straight.
Phil, Christmas candy canes is hardly a First Amendment issue. So we can rule this out as “ACLU supports religion”.
And let me bring up the case where the ACLU allowed the girl to sing a religious song. They defended her too. ( September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader’s right to sing “Awesome God” at a talent show.) I GUARANTEE if she wanted to lead with a prayer they wouldn’t have defended her.
So all but a very few of the TOKEN cases the ACLU took to ALLEGEDLY defend religious rights really have nothing to do with freedom of religion. But there sure are a lot of cases of them prohibiting the free exercise thereof!
“Tell that to the ACLU, who have nothing better to do than rob Christians of their free speech in almost every forum.”
The entire country also happens to be a place where the government can’t establish religion, but don’t expect people to get that.
As usual, you folks have the facts completely backwards on this one. This is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
Actus,
“The entire country also happens to be a place where the government can’t establish religion, but don’t expect people to get that.”
Actually the exact phrase in the 1st Amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*;…” (Emphasis mine).
Isn’t it interesting that no one of the Left ever remembers to quote the *second* part? Funny how that works. :p
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*;…
It also clearly relates only to Congress making a LAW. Somehow, erecting a nativity scene doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a law passed by congress.
And where exactly does it say “separation of church and state” in the constitution?
Freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
stoptheaclu gets it wrong…
Polk county decided that they had better use for their tax dollars than fighting a legal battle against legal terrorists. Most government entities would rather do this. Frightening as it is, Governments are cash strapped and cannot afford to fight frivolous battles.
The ACLU wins every time because fiscal restraint rules over freedom and culture.
We need a big sugar daddy to fight and stop the ACLU.
Funny, I don’t see any information anywhere supporting the conclusion that the ACLU was suing to shut down the “free speech” zone. I did find this:
“TAMPA, FL - In a victory for free speech, Polk County officials today agreed to temporarily eliminate a burdensome rule that had been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union requiring that individuals and groups purchase expensive insurance policies before being allowed to set up displays in front of the county administration building.” (http://aclu.org/freespeech/gen/22854prs20051213.html)
But I suppose if the facts don’t agree with your worldview, you may as well just ignore them, no?
“The entire country also happens to be a place where the government can’t establish religion, but don’t expect people to get that.”
I do believe you are confusing the governments responsibility to ‘protect’ the peoples right to freedom of religion with ‘establishment’.
If not… give us an example of the government actually establishing a religion.
What the heck?
The ACLU had filed a lawsuit that challenged the exorbitant insurance policy that Polk County was requiring EVERYONE (including churches) to pay before being allowed to set up a display in the “free speech zone.”
The ACLU was NOT trying to stop the displays from going up. On the contrary, they were fighting for the rights of churches to put up their displays without undue financial burdens.
Polk County decided to get rid of the free speech zones. The ACLU had nothing to do with that.
I’m not always a huge fan of the ACLU either, but jeez, at least try to get your facts straight.
Can we get some links with this Polk County bit?
apostle,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/southwest/orl-swbriefs22_406jan22,0,5069522.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-swest
Thanks Lobo. Okay, so now someone can tell me why, if the ACLU were not fighting to eliminate or at least change the free speech zones, why the report says
“In late 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union and two co-defendants filed suit against the county over policies in the zone they think are unconstitutional”
Don’t forget
“as part of an agreement with the ACLU.”
Unless it is all over the financial dispute? There wasn’t a lot there.
“It also clearly relates only to Congress making a LAW. Somehow, erecting a nativity scene doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a law passed by congress.”
I don’t expect people to get the doctrine of incorporation, which prevents states from violating the bill of rights too.
“I do believe you are confusing the governments responsibility to ‘protect’ the peoples right to freedom of religion with ‘establishment’.”
Like I said. I don’t expect people to get it.
Apostle, check this link for information on why the ACLU was suing Polk County (I posted the URL, without linking, in my previous comment). In short, the county was requiring anyone wanting to put up a display in the “free speech area” to have a $500,000 insurance policy. Which is not very free.
“I don’t expect people to get the doctrine of incorporation, which prevents states from violating the bill of rights too.”
A nativity scene on public property doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights. Chech your reading comprehension.
” Like I said. I don’t expect people to get it”
Then you might want to wake up the authors of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. They don’t get it either, because they penned the Constitution and didn’t see anything wrong religious displays on public property. This would give intelligent people indication as to intent, but hey, Jefferson didn’t understand what he wrote. You do.
Davis: Got your link. I didn’t see it above. No, it that’s not free. I’d call it rape.
“A nativity scene on public property doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights. Chech your reading comprehension.”
It can if its an establishment of religion.
“hey don’t get it either, because they penned the Constitution and didn’t see anything wrong religious displays on public property. This would give intelligent people indication as to intent, but hey, Jefferson didn’t understand what he wrote. You do.”
I say we follow their words. Not the intent that they didn’t put into their words but whose minds we’re supposed to read.
“It can if its an establishment of religion.”
Establishing a religion would be making it a law. Nativity scenes don’t force people to be Christians. The government does not say it won’t endorse anything. Kind of why Congress prays to the Christian God before each session, why the President must swear on the Bible…
“I say we follow their words. Not the intent that they didn’t put into their words but whose minds we’re supposed to read.”
I agree. So when good old Ben Franklin says that we should teach “the necessity of a public religion and the excellance of Christianity above all others,” you won’t object. No where do their “words” claim that the government can’t have religious displays on public property. Since separation of church and state was never written in the Constitution, then we should “follow their words. Not the intent that they didn’t put into their words but whose minds were supposed to read.” Like the intent of separation of church and state that was never put into their words.