Constitutional protection--a question

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So when people say they have the constitutional right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech..

I know some hear have explained what that means and was curious if they could help me out.

I don't know how to articulate what I mean...but as an example---when someone says they have they are constitutionally protected to preach on religion in the Magic Kindgom because of freedom of speech (not a true story btw!!! ). IN reality they don't, b/c it is private property, right?

Anyone have a quick post on the definition of these freedoms and when they are applicable. Thanks!

 

[MorganLeFey]

Teh First Amendment simply says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, Congress can't make a law establishing an official religion or preventing peple from following their faith, and Congress can't make a law which would prevent the exercise of free speech.

the amendment only addresses the government's behavior, not the behavior of private organizations.

over the years the Supreme Court has been called upon to interpret the Constitution and the extent of the protection it offers -- the freedoms are not absolutes. that's where we get the idea of separation of church and state. and the famous limitation on free speech "you can't cry 'fire' in a crowded theater."

the rest is all detail.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

thank you so much!

I was having trouble articulating that! (get the thoughts in my head and have much trouble sometimes in getting it out correctly).

 

[golfgal]

One way to look at it too is that my right to free speech ends where your rights start meaning at my house you can't come in here and say offensive things (or what ever) to me and not expect me to throw you out AND you would have no recourse if I threw you out. If someone wanted to preach religion at Disney and Disney didn't want them to, they have every right to throw them out. Now, Disney doesn't have the right to stop them from preaching across the street from Disney on property that Disney does not own.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

makes sense.

This was for someone in a debate on one of my "non-denominational open to all including atheists, pagans, and wiccans and more" homeschool groups.

She proclaimed a constitutional right for Christians to say their message wherever they like. (And b/c of her rudeness in proclaiming Jesus, she consequently got changed to moderated status as one of the rules of the group is to respect other people and not go into religious sermons--so I do wonder if she believes her constitutional rights got violated LOL!)

A real whacko. I was trying to explain that the homeschool convention she was speaking about wasn't a government entity and could make whatever rules they please versus content. And that anybody at anytime could distribute any material they wished. (someone was upset that they were distributed very religious pamphlets at a workshop that was designated as a non-faith workshop).

She went so far as to say that child molestors had the constitutional right to distribute literature promoting child molestaton! (yes--she actually said that in her message!!! Thankfully she didn't mean at the homeschool convention)

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

[brerrabbit]

Its a very fine line when it comes to freedom of speech. Let me give you an example away from free speech to make a point. In Texas you can get a permit to carry a conciled weapon. However, businesses can prohibit the exercise of the permit by posting a sign on their property that says, no guns allowed. If you take a conciled weapon on the premises then you are guilty of criminal treaspass. You are not guilty of violating the gun law.

So in your case the meeting was a non denominational homeschool group and as such the governing body of the organization could set out the rules for the meetings which could include no religious discussion. If she violated those rules she could then be subject to disipline by the group within their guidelines, sanction, banned from meetings etc. If she pursued it beyound that the group could have her removed under the criminal treaspase laws.

As far as a Child Molester passing out pro molestation literature it depends. If he was previously convicted then to do so would be in violation of his release/parole conditions and could land him back in jail. If he had not been convicted then depending on the literature he was passing out he could be arrested on pornography charges. At the least any attempt to pass out information at a private meeting of an organization could be viewed as criminal treaspase unless he was doing it in a public area such as a street corner. But her giving that as an example is way off base because free speech does not extend to saying anything you want anywhere you want.
It's more complicated than that.

 

[MorganLeFey]

ever hear of NAMBLA? they CAN pass out literature promoting the legalization of "relations" between grown men and young boys.

they can't advocate breaking the exisitng law by engaging in such relations. that would be advocating a crime - a limtation on free speech.

nor can they distribute child pornography.


as for the religious literature -- the lady has the irght ot practice her religion as she chooses, she has the right to preach her religion, but not on private property without permission. the sponsor has the irght to limit her otherwise-free speech, and if she doens't like it she can go elsewhere to preach.