Attacks on First Amendment Protection of Freedoms (Religion, Speech, Press, and Association)

2


Links to  up-to-date articles (my articles first, then other articles) are below the initial links.


State v. Steve Drake (Sidewalk Counselor at Abortion Clinic Charged with Violating Sign Ordinance of Austin TX). Steve was found guilty at trial but the Appeals Court reversed and ordered Acquittal. Constitutional issues and arguments covered freedom of speech in the public forum:

Appellant’s (Steve’s) Appeal Brief
State’s Brief
Appellant’s Reply to State’s Brief
Judgment of Appeals Court
Trial Court Finding of Not Guilty
Trial Court Letter to Steve’s Attorney


Important: Law Professor explains why never to talk to police and why!


See also, Articles, Law, Etc., on Street Preaching and Some Related Issues


Street Preaching: Legal Issues


Online example of police violating the rights (either ignorant of the law or intentionally) of a street preacher with my comments giving legal resources, etc.


Minority Stress Is Real, but Wedding Cakes Don’t Cause It

Why the Masterpiece Cake Case Matters to All Americans


Tract: Street Preaching in America – Is It Legal?

Sample United States Supreme Court quote from a case cited in the above tract: “Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S 252, 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. …”


Liberal writers and “scholars” who promote sodomy, same-sex marriage, pedophelia, etc. are hard at work laying the groundwork for the legal overturning of our basic First Amendment freedoms. A series of essays by Adam Macleod address some of these postmodern attacks which rely on lies, omissions, illogical, and misleading arguments.

Debating Liberty: Why You Should Read the New Book by John Corvino, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis (110517)(Introductory paragraph to essay: “A recent addition to Oxford University Press’s Debating Ethics series ought to interest everyone. Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination, by John Corvino, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis, primarily addresses the subjects of its title. But in the course of the argument, the authors expose most of the moral, political, and jurisprudential rifts that divide Americans today. The implications of this well-argued debate reach far beyond the latest round in the culture wars. They go to the foundations of the American experiment in ordered liberty. The title could have been shortened to Debating Liberty without misleading.”)

The Impoverishment of Law and the Loss of Ordered Liberty (110617) (Quotes from article: “In their new book, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis make a strong case for pluralism and ordered liberty, while John Corvino drafts a blueprint for a comprehensive despotism that would consume the preconditions and legal safeguards for ordered liberty. Part two of a two-part review essay…. Corvino’s argument for reversing the presumption of religious liberty is really an argument for reversing the presumption of liberty, full stop. In sum, Anderson and Girgis make a strong case for pluralism and ordered liberty, while Corvino drafts a blueprint for a comprehensive despotism that would consume the preconditions and legal safeguards for ordered liberty.”)


Click here to go to “Court Cases of Interest” which has links to cases – including recent Supreme Court cases which came after the above linked tract, “Street Preaching in America – Is It Legal?” was written – which continue to strongly uphold freedom of speech and, for example, show that the job of law enforcement is to protect those exercising their First Amendment freedoms in the public forum, not those who would deny speech which is offensive or hurts their feelings.

Article: The Legality of Door-to-Door Evangelism

OffensiveSpeechClick here to go to the history of how America got its First Amendment. Every American should know this. Both Christian and Secular mainline sources have lied to us about this matter, but the record is clear, which honest research proves.


Some of my articles


Articles:

The above is a left-wing lie instituted by the devil and his followers. No free speech means tyranny prevails.

 

A lawyer teaches American churches how to organize according to New Testament principles without corporate 501(c)(3) or legal status of any kind

%d bloggers like this: