Free Speech Victory for Religious Broadcasters
Posted on December 8, 2007
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 bites the dust:
“Religious broadcasters were celebrating Friday over the removal of a hate-crimes provision from the National Defense Authorization Act. The American Civil Liberties Union supported the provision, saying that it protected free-speech rights while punishing only the hateful conduct.
The bill punished the conduct of targeting someone for violence because of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It allowed bigoted speech or association with hate groups as evidence of a crime, but only if it was directly related to the crime.
But religious broadcasters were not assuaged. “We know the bill’s sponsors did not believe it had any First Amendment implications,” National Religious Broadcasters senior vice president and general counsel Craig Parshall said, “but we felt it did. It was a troublesome scenario,” he added, calling its removal “a big victory.” …
Religious broadcasters are concerned that such a bill might suppress speech from the pulpit, like preaching on morals and values that might not square with some powerful politicians, say opposing homosexuality or branding Islam a false religion.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and TELSTRA/BIGPOND. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Free Speech Victory for Religious Broadcasters”
-
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
*Cheers*
A big loss to the ATHEISTS COMMUNISTS and LAWYERS,UNDERGROUND and a big win for free speech against the lefft-wing liberals
I fail to see how crimes of violence are protected speech. To the extent they may be, surely the constitution would protect them?
It would be a mistake, and a terrible injustice, to say that all those opposed to the bill want to retain their God-given right to lynch those they don’t like, but that is the objective effect of discarding this legislation.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and although the moonbats of the ACLU don’t manage even that much, they’re not always wrong.