1. The democrat party recently announced that they
are attempting to use a billboard outside of the office of
Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio to scold her for standing up to
veteran and blowhard, Representative John Murtha. Lamar Advertising,
who owns the billboard has refused to place the proposed ad. To
begin, no one is guaranteed a right to be heard. We are guaranteed a
right to speak. There is a big difference. Second, there is no
violation of a right to free speech here. Lamar is not preventing
democrats from voicing an opinion, rather they are refusing to serve
as a conduit for their speech. Democrats can and will continue to
spew their venom in numerous other ways. Lamar is not infringing upon
a right to speech they are simply controlling their property and the
use of that property, something they have a right to.
2.
Rumsfeld v. FAIR, on Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear this case
which addresses the Solomon Amendment, which requires universities to
allow military recruiting on campus as a requisite for federal
funding. Thirty-Six law schools have banded together to challenge the
amendment. One of their complaints? You guessed it, restriction of a
free speech to express disapproval of the policy. However, the
amendment does not prohibit students or faculty from speaking against
military action, the military, military recruiting, or even from
encouraging students not to join the armed forces. If anything the
amendment secures free speech by allowing the opposite side of the
issue onto campuses to present their position. But they don't want
military recruiting, so they pull out the restriction of free speech
bayonet.
Rather than actually reading the First Amendment and
its guarantees, the left has attempted to create an all powerful
First Amendment right to be free from opposition under the guise of
free speech. Now, I will grant that many of their liberal
counterparts in the judiciary have helped their cause through their
continued attempt to extend the reach of the First Amendment, but
they find no support for such a notion under the Constitution itself,
or any form of reasonable or rational First Amendment jurisprudence.
So I challenge my liberals friends, read the first amendment, even
read the jurisprudence on the right to free speech, and think about
whether the claims above have any merit what-so-ever.
Rather than actually reading the First Amendment and
its guarantees, the left has attempted to create an all powerful
First Amendment right to be free from opposition under the guise of
free speech. Now, I will grant that many of their liberal
counterparts in the judiciary have helped their cause through their
continued attempt to extend the reach of the First Amendment, but
they find no support for such a notion under the Constitution itself,
or any form of reasonable or rational First Amendment jurisprudence.
So I challenge my liberals friends, read the first amendment, even
read the jurisprudence on the right to free speech, and think about
whether the claims above have any merit what-so-ever.
