A little something for those of us who complain about hearing too much Christmas music.
December 2005
Monthly Archive
News24 Dec 2005 01:28 am
This from a North Carolinian with Greensboro ties who made good in the world.
He was the most famous newsman in broadcasting, but he spelled out the limitations of his trade. "Just because the microphone in front of you amplifies your voice around the world," he’d say, "is no reason to think we have any more wisdom than we had when our voices could reach only from one end of the bar to the other."
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility."
Here’s to good friends, good partners and good buisness.
If we find Hollywood isn’t listening…we’ll just turn it up a notch.
Opinion04 Dec 2005 05:14 pm
Your Rights Begin Where Mine End
We pulled the following from here. Note the date on the article.
Vanderbilt law professor Tom McCoy agrees that Phelps should have the right to express his opinions. "It is crystal clear that government officials cannot censor, regulate or suppress his anti-gay speech because of a dislike for the content of his message," he told free!
According to McCoy, Phelps’ speech is a form of political speech that should be absolutely free from censorship. "It is a classic Brandenburg case," he said.
In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who gave a speech laced with anti-black and anti-Jewish sentiments. The high court wrote that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action."
According to McCoy, "a funeral is not a public forum" — or an area in which First Amendment rights have been traditionally respected and protected. For this reason, city officials can enact so-called reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech.
"Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions designed to protect privacy rights would most likely withstand constitutional scrutiny. City officials need to be careful to apply such restrictions evenhandedly," McCoy said.
What if in the "Formal" obituary a "Public" announcement was made as to the wishes of the deceased or the family as to whether or not the funeral services were "Private". Of course just how "Private" could be left at the discretion of the family.
That together with "Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions designed to protect privacy rights" enacted by local city municipalities could offer some kind of relief.
Maybe the next time Phelps or his people call ahead to check to see if their corner is ready with police protection and the media camera’s he could be informed that no it isnt, that it has been "Publicly" announced that the Services are "Private" and that unless otherwise informed they have not been invited.
If they show up, would it then become a question of the privacy rights of the individual or family being violated, in order for them to protect theirs?