Court wants to take away your right to be a dick
Posted
February 13, 2007 at
4:42 pm by
Prescott
Daniel P., arguably not a great guy or a good influence, was recently released from prison and has been trying to see his two sons, ages 13 and 11. The mother objected, because of various claims that included his “extremist views regarding religion, including … jihad”. The New York appellate court agreed to allow Daniel supervised visitation, but it comes with a very interesting caveat. Eugene Volokh, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, details a scary assault on this parent’s First Amendment rights:
But the court also upheld, in the name of “the best interest of the children,” the trial court’s order that Daniel not discuss with the children “any issues pertaining to his religion.”
It is surely in the children’s best interests not to be taught militant jihad. But the trial court didn’t apply a jihadists-only rule, or a “convicted felons lose their parent-child speech rights” rule. Rather, it applied the broad and subjective “best interests of the child” standard. Many parents might wonder how their own philosophies might be evaluated by family judges under that standard.
In fact, a wide range of parental speech has been prohibited by family courts, all in the name of the child’s “best interests.” One parent was enjoined from making racial slurs in a child’s presence. Another parent whose ex was a lesbian was ordered to “make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic.”
The top of my Libertarian head just blew completely off. At first blush, one might think this is a victory — let’s apply the rule to Fred Phelps! But as a wiser man than I once said, it’s easy to protect ideas that we all find agreeable, it’s the right to be offensive that truly marks our freedom of speech. As the United States marches towards theocracy, am I one day going to be forbidden to tell my children that there is no god? Scary stuff, indeed.
While I find teaching children any sort of hate despicable, banning mere words and ideology just because we don’t like it is a slippery slope that I don’t want to start going down. Allowing the trickling erosion of our rights will eventually turn into a flood, and one day we’re going to wake up and notice a giant hole where our freedom used to be.
Tags: civil-rights, first-amendment, freedom-of-speech, jihad, News-&-Politics, Parenting |
3 Responses to “Court wants to take away your right to be a dick”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Scott Stewart said:
February 13, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
” banning mere words and ideology just because we don’t like it is a slippery slope that I don’t want to start going down.”
Hey, Prescott, did you not already go down that slide with great glee?
Considering that the Imperfect Parent completely deleted and entire post that originated last year simply because Jessica did not like the most recent scientifically grounded dialogue in which three other posters participated at great length, I really don’t think you have any standing be talking about protecting any one’s free speech.
Do you? If so, how can you possibly justify removing the section called “Sexual predator claims that the small children he abused innitiated the sex” that had 48 posts!
And then follow it with the above proclamation that you deplore censorship?
Where do these two actions conform to any sort of integrity?
2. Prescott said:
February 13, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
b) We did not delete the post, but merely password protected it.
[quote comment="67066"]Where do these two actions conform to any sort of integrity?[/quote]
c) They don’t have to — I have the right to edit whatever I want on my own website. There’s no absolute freedom of speech in regards to a private enterprise — go tell your boss to fuck off and see how that goes for you. First Amendment rights refer to the government squashing of speech and ideas, which is what I was addressing in my blog post.
By the way, “Scott”, your open proxy hacking skills suck.
3. Scott Stewart said:
February 13, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
[quote comment="67072"]
c) They don’t have to — I have the right to edit whatever I want on my own website. [/quote]
Yes you do. You have the right to fail a test of integrity to your own stated rationale and promise for this site, namely, allowing politically incorrect speech when it comes to parenting of children.
Yes, you addressed it while representing yourself as someone interested in a forum where distasteful words and idealogy could see the light of day.
You can even play footsies with the definition of censorship and password protect to try and deflect the critisism that you are disingenious to state “banning mere words and ideology just because we don’t like it is a slippery slope that I don’t want to start going down” in one breath, and then do exactly that with the other.
BTW, “Prescott” your self flogging skills suck.