Free OF Religion For ALL! Forever!

"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." Establishment of religion Establishment Clause of the First Amendment The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Warren Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to this clause, holding that a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities. In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court retreated from this standard, permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religion. The Congress attempted to restore this standard by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court held that such an attempt was unconstitutional regarding state and local government actions (though permissible regarding federal actions). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

Say It Loud!

Sedition The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of any federal law in regards to the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century. The Supreme Court never ruled on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and even the leading critics of the law, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the laws' unconstitutionality on the basis of the First Amendment, among other Constitutional provisions (e.g. Tenth Amendment)[1]After World War I, several cases involving laws limiting speech came before the Supreme Court. The Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of twenty years for anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States." Under the Act, over two thousand prosecutions were commenced. For instance, one filmmaker was sentenced to ten years imprisonment because his portrayal of British soldiers in a movie about the American Revolution impugned the good faith of an American ally, the United Kingdom. The Sedition Act of 1918 went even further, criminalizing "disloyal," "scurrilous" or "abusive" language against the government. In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Supreme Court was first requested to strike down a law violating the Free Speech Clause. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had, during the war, published leaflets challenging the conscription system then in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction for violating the Espionage Act. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, suggested that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." The "clear and present danger" test of Schenck was extended in Debs v. United States, 49 U.S. 211 (1919), again by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case involved a speech made by Eugene V. Debs, a political activist. Debs had not spoken any words that posed a "clear and present danger" to the conscription system, but a speech in which he denounced militarism was nonetheless found to be sufficient grounds for his conviction. Justice Holmes suggested that the speech had a "natural tendency" to occlude the draft. Thus, the Supreme Court effectively shaped the First Amendment in such a manner as to permit a multitude of restrictions on speech. Further restrictions on speech were accepted by the Supreme Court when it decided Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state." Lawmakers were given the freedom to decide which speech would constitute a danger. Freedom of speech was influenced by anti-communism during the Cold War. In 1940, the Congress enacted the Smith Act. The Smith Act made punishable the advocacy of "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence." The law was mainly used as a weapon against Communist leaders. The constitutionality of the Act was questioned in Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494 (1951). The Court upheld the law in 1951 by a 6-2 vote (Justice Tom C. Clark did not participate because he had previously ordered the prosecutions when he was Attorney General). Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson relied on Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test when he wrote for the majority. Vinson suggested that the doctrine did not require the government to "wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited", thereby broadly defining the words "clear and present danger." Thus, even though there was no immediate danger posed by the Communist Party's ideas, the Court allowed the Congress to restrict the Communist Party's speech. Dennis has never been explicitly overruled by the Court, but subsequent decisions have greatly narrowed its place within First Amendment jurisprudence. In 1957, the Court changed its interpretation of the Smith Act in deciding Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas". Thus, the advocacy of abstract doctrine remains protected under the First Amendment. Only speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable under the Smith Act.

Net Neutrality

Network Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

Debating

'This House believes that the media cannot be trusted to determine the limits of free speech' FREEDOM OF SPEECH AT RCDS On a sultry Belgravia evening the first of the 2006 Seaford House RCDS debates took place recently. In introducing the event, Admiral Sir Ian Garnett said "Their purpose is not only to debate topical issues of relevance to the College syllabus among a distinguished audience, but also to help ensure that the College remains a place of learning and exchange, where Members and guests alike can share knowledge and opinion and where the strategic issues of our day are given an objective and robust airing."

Losing money

I'm trying to be on my best behavior; about 3 or 5 days ago, myLot (or someone) took offense to some discussions I started, shut them down and began to take away earnings! The first time I ever noticed my earnings going backwards before and it was NOT fun! So now I'm being a good girl (no controversy here!) and just responding to others' discussions. Oh well, so much for free speech!

Free Speech?

Free speech zone?

Speak Up!

Speak up for what you believe.

State of Emergency

State of Emergency From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia State of Emergency is a controversial 2002 console game released by Rockstar Games. It was developed by Scottish firm VIS entertainment Ltd. for the PlayStation 2, Xbox and Microsoft Windows. The game takes place in the near future, where an omnipresent corporation (known simply as "The Corporation") rules the lives of the ordinary people. Dissidence and free speech are disallowed - rebellion is met with a swift and violent death. All private enterprise is owned by The Corporation. Nonetheless, there is a small, growing resistance movement dedicated to overthrowing The Corporation by means of inciting riots. It is the player's aim to make life as difficult as possible for The Corporation by causing as much mayhem and destruction as possible. Each of the members of this uprising that the player can take control of have background stories that explain their hatred of The Corporation.

The art of Debate

Debating as an art form.

Free Speech

Free Speech - democratic.