Free Speech Zones II

My original post covered the restriction of free speech in regard to where protesters are allowed to, well, protest. The upcoming Democratic National convention in Denver (Aug 25-28) was one of the examples. As much as I may disagree with the message that DNC protests might bring, I fully support the rights of dissenters to protest and disagree.

It is with a heavy heart that I must update the situation. A federal judge has ruled that the defined “free speech zones” are, in fact, legal.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger agreed that the protesters would suffer some infringement on their freedom of expression but said those interests had to be balanced with security concerns.

I officially call bullshit.

This is the same tired argument that the White House has been using for almost eight years as an excuse to chip away at our civil liberties. It’s always in the “best interest of security” and delivered with a father-knows-best attitude (or in this case, mother-knows-best).

Should we sacrifice security? Of course not. Is it possible to balance the need for security with the rights of citizens to express themselves peacefully? If not, we are doing something seriously wrong. I can’t think or write straight right now, so I’m just going to end this here.

Lazy Update II

This is more of a link dump than anything else. (It is almost 2am right now and I still can’t sleep).

Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant linked an article from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It details the difficulties that the FFRF’s new legal intern faced growing up as a Jehova’s Witness. She lived in fear and oppression before finally gaining the courage to step away.

On the eve of my sixteenth birthday, I called the police. After obtaining a six-month restraining order against my father, I sat in the car, in front of the courthouse, with my maternal grandmother, while my mother attempted to console my father.

Her tale is one that details the negative impact that religion has on families and the growth of children.

Six months later, after six months of peace and quiet and tranquility, I got down on my hands and knees in front of my mother and pleaded and begged her not to let my father back into the house. She said no. She chose him, because she thought that’s what Jehovah wanted her to do.

Her mother chose to live in an abusive, unhealthy relationship that was harmful to her children, all in the name of religion. I was truly at a loss for words by the end.

Second, I have a link from The Information Paradox where author Pariahjane has a simple request

Her post is in response to an attempt to update the “Conscience Clause” for pharmacists who are unwilling to dispense birth control due to religious objections. In recent years (I’m too lazy to find links right now) there have been cases of pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions and holding those prescriptions without transferring them to another pharmacist or pharmacy to be filled. Currently it is illegal for a pharmacist to refuse to transfer the prescription. They must allow another willing pahrmacist fill the order.

In areas with limited pharmacies and/or limited public transportation, an updated conscience clause would allow these pharmacists to completely (and legally) restrict access to birth control.

Pharmacists, just like everyone else, are entitled to their beliefs. They are not, however, allowed to use their position as a means to promote their own world view.

Finally, I’ve added links to three more blogs on the right. PhillyChief’s You Made Me Say it, The Exterminator’s No More Hornets, and (((Billy))) The Atheist. With the exception of Billy, I’ve been reading the other two blogs for a while now. I got into a discussion with those three in the No More Hornets comment section, so I’ve decided to shamelessly plug them.