Posted on 03/08/2007 2:14:19 AM PST by Man50D
A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" because that is hate speech and could scare workers.
The ruling came in a case being handled by the Pro-Family Law Center, which promised an appeal of the drastic result.
"We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court," said Richard D. Ackerman, who along with Scott Lively argued the case for the Pro-Family Law Center.
We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day – especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," he said.
"If we fail to get U.S. Supreme Court review, however, it will be up to each individual Christian in the United States to stand up for their rights to be heard on the issues of the day. If we choose to be silent, silenced we shall be," he said.
The decision came in an unpublished "memorandum" from the court, and was in a dispute over the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle within the city offices of Oakland, Calif.
It found that municipalities have a right to dictate what form an employee's speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues.
"Public employees are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech," said the court's opinion by judges B. Fletcher, Clifton and Ikuta, who noted that their writings are "not appropriate for publication."
"The district court appropriately described [the Christians' speech rights] as 'vanishingly small,'" the opinion continued.
However, as the Pro-Family Law Center noted, the court "completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech."
The case had developed when two city employees who wanted to launch a group of people who shared their interests posted a notice on a city bulletin board – after a series of notices from homosexual activists were delivered to them via the city's e-mail system, bulletin boards and memo distribution system.
The notice said:
Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values. If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx- xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx
But Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled in 2005 that Oakland had a right to prevent the employees from posting that Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on the office bulletin board.
That decision was made even though homosexuals already had been using the city's e-mail, bulletin board, and written communications systems for promoting their views. In fact, one city official even used the e-mail system to declare the Bible "needs updating," but no actions were taken against those individuals.
The case was argued recently at a special session of the 9th Circuit at the Stanford University Law School.
"The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court's ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment. I want to believe that our Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case on the values and instructions set forth in motion by the nations Founders," said Ackerman.
Ackerman's' firm represents the women and said the Pro-Family Law Center and Abiding Truth Ministries have helped underwrite the thousands of dollars it has cost to fight the city's aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
The 9th Circuit needs to be broken up.
Free speech may be a thing of the past?
I disagree with the content of the court's opinion here, but I'm afraid they are on sound legal ground. We have free speech rights, but only as private citizens. Courts have consistently ruled that employers can restrict speech of employees (especially government employees) while on the job. For example, the Hatch Act restricts political speech by public employees on the job. Public employees cannot advocate for particular candidates or parties on work time. Where the City of Oakland may have gone wrong was by allowing some political speech while forbidding others. That may open them to an action based on discrimination. But they would be legally protected if they proscribed both sides from using work time or a company bulletin board for non-work related political appeals.
So, where do you draw the line?
How long before saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes is considered "hate speech"?
When will, "I disagree with your liberal interpretation" be grounds for arrest?
"on sound legal ground"
I hope you are very wrong.
Someone has to do something about that 9th circuit court.
Wrong. The 9th Circuit needs to be impeached. Oops, the cowardly Republicans lost control of the House and Senate. Well, they weren't doing anythng with it anyways.
True---but this is a case of UNEQUAL application of the rules. One faction (the queers) are openly permitted speech espousing THEIR position on company time with company resources, but the Christians are prevented from doing so. Either let BOTH factions speak, or shut BOTH factions up.
As usual, the Ninth Circuit is nuts.
I don't like the Ninth Circus, but after reading the opinion, I have to disagree with the characterization of the article. The Ninth Circus did not call it hate speech. What they said was that the only act complained of was that administrators had torn down a flyer the complainants had posted on the wall at work, and that act by itself is "vanishingly small" in terms of the effect it has on free speech.
Too bad, though, that the hypocritical Ninth Circus only implements the "de minimis" doctrine when it's conservatives who are complaining about things, and they make Constitutional cases out of liberal complaints of a similar import.
The city has set a precendent by allowing the homosexual agenda to be promoted on the bulletin board and in e-mails. They have even allowed anti-Christian messages to be sent without interference. By doing so, they have given tacit approval to use of city bulletin boards and e-mails for such purposes.
By specifically denying Christian groups access to the same priviledges, they have in fact, discriminated against them on religious grounds and are guilty of denying the Christians their 1st amendment rights.
'"on sound legal ground"
I hope you are very wrong.'
Not me. This is nothing new. Unchecked employee speech or expression can destroy a business or organization. There are protections in place so some wing-nut employee doesn't have the right to sink your business and ruin the lives of you and your employees with "free speech".
When the government acts as the employee, the same holds. The government cannot restrict speech but your employer can. If the government is your employer, they call the shots. Don't like it? Quit and you won't have to worry about it.
I believe we are in the last days - the GOP is nothing more than a dem light party and Bush has no balls to do whats right - he cares more about globalism than the US. It will take Christians standing together, even under the threat of arrest to do whats right - the republican party is not our salvation it is our faith in the almighty and our belief in our God given rights regardless of the consequences.
That's the problem in a nutshell isn't it?
The homosexual life style and global warming and evolution are all part of a secular religion which is fast becoming established in violation of the 1st amendment. It won't fly to argue that the Christians are under seige. It is the establishment of this state religion which is the true threat to all people of faith.
Sorry if you were not included. I don't have a list.
NO KIDDING.
That bears repeating.
This just follows the same logic as affirmative action? Why should we be surprised? The rights of self-proclaimed minorities trump the Constitution.
How long before saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes is considered "hate speech".
It is already here. The company my husband works for has told the employees that they cannot say "God bless you" when someone sneezes. It might offend someone, doncha know. I didn't believe it, until I read the dictum for myself. Un-freakin'-believable!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.