doubtingt

I am a huge defender of the 1st Amendment.
I think there is no greater threat to the U.S. the
the fundamentalists who aim to destroy it.
However, there have been a number of cases over the past few years that seemed ridiculous and
not something that 1st Ammendment defenders would
stand behind. That has got me wondering whether
some of these cases are bogus cases where the complaintant is actually attempting to fuel a backlash against the 1st Ammendment by bringing
phony and ridulous cases.

Do any of you suspect this and can you think of specific cases where this seems likely?

Undercurrent

Which lawsuits do you think are phony?

m.

Toto

I can't think of any lawsuits that were deliberately brought as "phony", but there are some that a careful political First Amendment strategist would probably not have brought.

G V

I'm sure we are not talking about the crackpots who sometimes manage to file pleadings, which get thrown out most of the time.

But there are groups of lawyers working for the extreme right and places like the ACLJ that file some First Amendment cases in federal courts.

Was the OP thinking of the ACLJ ?

beejay

DoubtingT, we really do need examples of what you think is ridiculous.

I'm not sure any First Amendment violation should be tolerated, especially if it seems likely (possible?) that the case can be won.

Although I understand the argument that we shouldn't arouse a sleeping bear (the religious right), I'm not sure they aren't already aroused as much as they'll ever be.

If I challenge a Ten Commandment display at the local courthouse, will that encourage someone [who opposes me] to vote who otherwise wouldn't? Perhaps. But I still think I need to make the challenge.

doubtingt

I hesitated to post this assertion,
because I don't have specific cases in hand.
I just recall having had this thought a handful
of times over the past few years. That Yoga
case that being discussed in another thread
is potentially an example.
As I said in post, I was basically fishing to
see if this notion has crossed others minds.

The case of the cross painted on the tile in
Colorado trikes me as suspect. Given that there were any tiles and individuals each painted whatever they wanted, it strikes me as a case of singling out religious speech and censoring it.
Although I have no sound basis for the accusation,
it would not surprise me if the religious right
brought such a case, knowing there would be an
almost universal backlash.

If they aren't staging this kind of espionage yet, it still seems like something to keep an eye out for.

beejay

The yoga class issue was brought up by a Baptist minister who is unhappy with what he sees as a religious aspect of it. (So it doesn't seem like an example of a phony lawsuit.)

In the cross on the tile case in Colorado, the school said they feared a lawsuit from the ACLU. That was a reason they gave for prohibiting the display. I'm not sure the ACLU is at all involved in that case.

Schools (or any public institution) get themselves in trouble when they allow certain displays by individuals and not others, choosing based on content. On First Amendment grounds, I would think that any display would have to be accepted.

So, again, not a case of the First Amendment being made to look ridiculous, I think? I certainly don't think the school is trying to do that. They are just overly cautious (and I think incorrect) when deciding what content to allow.

I have a hard time imagining anybody filing a lawsuit that supports the other side, just to make the other side look ridiculous.

It is something to think about, though, when arguing for your point and an opponent says "well, if you believe 'x', then you must believe 'y'". I've run into that a lot when arguing religion or the law.

doubtingt

[QUOTE]Originally posted by beejay:
In the cross on the tile case in Colorado, the school said they feared a lawsuit from the ACLU. That was a reason they gave for prohibiting the display. I'm not sure the ACLU is at all involved in that case.

Schools (or any public institution) get themselves in trouble when they allow certain displays by individuals and not others, choosing based on content. On First Amendment grounds, I would think that any display would have to be accepted.

So, again, not a case of the First Amendment being made to look ridiculous, I think?"


-----------

I'm not entirely sure about this case. It seems
to me that "allow[ing] certain displays by individuals and not others, choosing based on content" is exactly what the school did. There
were many many tiles made by individuals and only the one with the cross was singled out and censored. If I'm not wrong on those facts, then
it almost seems like the school violated the
1st Ammendment by removing the tile.
It may only have been an unwise overreaction, but
I wouldn't rule out mischeif. After all,
fundamentalism is pretty strong in the Denver area, and they have already used this school shooting to slander atheism. Remember the
false story that was spread nationwide about
the shooter supposedly shooting a girl b/c
she said she believed in God.

beejay

OK. I think we agree here. It was a First Amendment violation of the school to censor tiles based on content. My point was just that "our side" isn't in this fight.

You are also right that the school COULD be censoring the tiles, not because they truly believe they should not be displayed, but to blame the ACLU for something. I can't tell what the school's motivation is.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: beejay ]</p>

tgamble

"The ACLU is always yakking about the Constitution, and most of us are getting mighty tired of it. I mean, if the Constitution is so great, how come it was amended so many times? Huh?" Dave Barry, The Leak Detectors