Tag-Archive for » First Amendment to the United States Constitution «

Diversity Day Boycott Rocks Campus

Below is a reproduction of the Diversity Day Boycott Statement distributed throughout campus (Please note that this in no way is a reflection of the beliefs of the Llama Ledger and is a complete reproduction of the original document):

Today we are boycotting Diversity Day and all diversity-related events this week.  This is in response to recent events catalyzed by “The Diversity Day Challenge”, a document distributed by a student on campus questioning the value of diversity, and therein questioning our very existence and invalidating our lived experiences.  While the actions of this specific individual have brought to light the complete and willful failure of those in power, as well as many members of the community, to acknowledge or address the needs of students or marginalized identities, or act of resistance is not directed towards any individual but rather to a large institutional problem.  We feel that Diversity Day operates, at best, as a consolation prize where the actual needs and rights of oppressed students have been ignored.  Things we wish to bring to public attention are:

  • We have been asked to justify our feelings of being unsafe and threatened in response to a white supremacist ideology
  • We have been further victimized, we have been called “bullies,” and we have been told to tolerate intolerance
  • We have been given the message that the first amendment right of one student overrides the right of students to speak out in their own defense
  • We were publicly told by the provost, Peter Laipson, to “be mindful of strong emotions,” and have been told by the community at large to be complacent in the face of our own oppression as an ongoing defense of first amendment rights
  • The suggestion that an emotional response to harassment and hate speech is wrong or uncalled for, simply because it does not mirror the apathy of the oppressor, is a notion which necessarily arises from a position or influence of privilege or denial—It is impossible for us to not be emotionally affected and any suggestion otherwise invalidates our lived experiences and dehumanizes us
  • Our attempts at organized and peaceful protests in response to the original challenge have been silenced and labeled as unjustified and similarly intolerant
  • It has come to the public attention that the provost has, in recent decisions, explicitly gone against our wishes and best interests as a marginalized and oppressed faction, essentially legitimizing white supremacist ideologies on this campus

Students originally conceived Diversity Day as a reasoned, well-constructed and definite effort toward affecting people’s perceptions and allowing for the imminent reality of a multicultural campus to actually sink in, both on the minds of a white patriarchy but also on administration at large, but its institutionalization and subsequent edification have made it problematic.  Lived experiences are far too rich, consummate and complex to be boxed in to three workshops and a proclamation of diversity.  In a community which truly valued diversity, each day would be observed as diversity day, and in every day, the needs of the marginalized students in this community would be met and with dignity and respect.  It is perhaps impossible for those in a position of privilege to truly understand the daily lived experiences of the oppressed; what is possible is respect and genuine empathy for those who have been silenced, but those two things cannot be the sole responsibility of those students labeled as representative of diversity.  Unless those in positions of power are willing to recognize their role in a larger system of oppression and take the burden of broadening their horizons upon themselves, there can be no real and earnest social change to this campus.


American Muslims Launch Petition to Limit Free Speech

Islamic leaders in Missouri and New Jersey are calling for lawmakers to limit free speech after an anti-Muslim film sparked outrage across the world.

The Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City has launched a petition calling on Congress to “establish a law against insulting one’s religion.”

“We understand the First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and, as such, prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, etc., but when the allowance of ‘free’ speech incites violence it should be banned,” read a statement from the Islamic Society.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Protest held outside anti-immigrant meeting at Boone County Library

A library in Northern Kentucky housed a controversial meeting Monday night that sparked debate over First Amendment rights.

While a white supremacist group held an anti-immigration meeting inside, demonstrators exercised their own free speech rights outside.

The controversy erupted when Florence and Boone County residents started to see flyers publicizing the meeting on their cars over the last week.

The flyer read in part that it wanted to rid the region of immigrants and “the rabble from the inner city of Cincinnati who have flocked to Florence.” To view the flyer click here (http://media2.wcpo.com/pdfs/letter.pdf) .

Residents upset over the tone and message decided to mount an impromptu demonstration. A half dozen protesters held signs at the Scheben branch of the Boone County Public Library calling for understanding and peace between the races.

“When I found out about the flyer, it really worried me. I think this man really is dangerous and that his message is really dangerous,” said protester Deanna White from Florence.

The man she is referring to is Robert Ransdell, Cincinnati leader of the National Alliance, a white supremacy group. Ransdell wrote the flyer and called the meeting.

The library stated that it could not legally deny him permission to use a conference room.

“The library is there for everyone in the community to use. We can’t really discriminate. It would be inappropriate for us,” said Boone County Library Director Greta Southard.

9 News was allowed inside the meeting before its official start. There was a handful of supporters in the room with Ransdell.

“The essential second class citizenship that we have and I think everyone in this establishment knows. The anti-white establishment: the government, the media and their camp followers, they know that the only thing standing between a real revolt and a stand against multi-culturalism and diversity is white people no longer fearing the smears. No longer being worried about being called names,” said Ransdell.

Outside that meeting, protesters had a very different message.

“I think that his message is one of hate and intolerance. I think he is bullying immigrants. I’m trying to teach my son the message of tolerance and reaching out with love to people and I want adults to do that, too, in this community,” said White.

Demonstrators added that it was important to show the public that residents will speak up for diversity and tolerance.

During the meeting there were at least two Boone County Sheriff deputies present, but no confrontations occurred between the groups.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mid Day Riot ~ Racist Obama T-Shirt Ignites Assault/Lawsuit

A 25 year old Manhatton graduate student was assaulted Tuesday evening for wearing an Obama T-Shirt.  The tee that she chose to sport on the streets of New York not only created hostility, but caused her to get her “A” beat down! The shirt (shown above worn by the designer) is a crudly constructed t-shirt with the words “Obama is My Slave” on the front and was sold for $69.  Anyway this dumb broad is now trying to sue the designer over the incident.  I don’t know who to root for in this situation…the racist fool who wore that mess on her chest or the ignorant azz designer, an israeli born imigrant who feels that most americans see Obama as a slave because they are not ready for a Black president. Ignorance versus Stupidity…what a lawsuit! :-? Sad thing is…the designer (who gets no shine over here…at all!) is probably protected by the First Amendment.

 

(TAKEN FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE)

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rally for Religious Freedom at Independence Hall

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia announced today that a Rally for Religious Freedom is scheduled for Friday, March 23 at Independence Hall from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM.

In response to the recent HHS mandate requiring virtually all private health care plans to cover sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception, the rally seeks to underscore that the lack of an exemption based on religious beliefs is not solely a Catholic issue, but a national issue.

The church has been roundly criticized for their opposition to this mandate citing that many Catholic women choose to use artificial contraception; that it’s a matter of public health; that women should have artificial contraception available to them no matter who they work for; and that the church’s views on contraception are generally outdated.

Those arguments are, however, irrelevant to the core issue, which is whether or not the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment: “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.”

The difficult thing about protecting rights, especially those outlined in the First Amendment, is recognizing that sometimes the opinions or practices of those protected are not always popular.

There are numerous examples of the Supreme Court upholding First Amendment rights of free speech even though a majority of citizens might find the message repugnant. As was noted in the case of Collin v Smith (7th Circuit 1978) concerning a march planned by a white supremacist group,  “The conflict underlying this litigation has commanded substantial public attention, and engendered considerable and understandable emotion.  We would hopefully surprise no one by confessing personal views that NSPA‘s beliefs and goals are repugnant to the core values held generally by residents of this country, and, indeed, to much of what we cherish in civilization.  As judges sworn to defend the Constitution, however, we cannot decide this or any case on that basis.  Ideological tyranny, no matter how worthy its motivation, is forbidden as much to appointed judges as to elected legislators.”

The litmus test for matters of conscience can be no less stringent. Any legislation that ignores the rights of conscience, or any right, will always be a double-edged sword. The federal government is not unbiased, nor impartial, and is subject to the whims of the ideology of the prevailing party. What may seem today to be the “sensible” thing to do could tomorrow be the “ideological tyranny” mentioned above, which is precisely the purpose of having a Bill of Rights at all.

There are many reasons to be concerned about the HHS mandate that have nothing at all to do with religion or conscience (the fact that it does not pertain to federal employers, federal money or funding, but concentrates on private employers and private insurance companies is but one example), but protecting the rights of religion and conscience strikes at the very core of this nation’s identity as a free country unencumbered by the varying whims of its leaders.

Just as there was opposition to the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, the Keep Our Communities Safe Act, and other recent legislation proposed from both sides of the aisle for their potential for violating constitutional rights, so too does the HHS mandate requiring private employers and insurance companies to provide a particular set of products and services, without allowing for religious beliefs or conscience, deserve a thorough review.

Enhanced by Zemanta