Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items matching "freedom" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
18More

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona
shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
22More

A Saudi woman tweeted a photo of herself without a hijab. Police have arrested her. - T... - 19 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...b-police-have-now-arrested-her
shared by Bryan Pregon on 14 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 14 Dec 16
     
    "Late last month, she tweeted a photo of her outfit, and the post circulated through Saudi Arabia, drawing death threats and demands to imprison or even execute the woman. On Monday, police in the country's capital of Riyadh said they had arrested the woman"
  • ...19 more comments...
  • Landon Mohr on 15 Dec 16
     
    I know it is their culture to where a hijab but the woman should get freedom. They shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace towards women. What she did was her belief and I think other women in Saudi Arabia don't want to wear their hijab all the time but they are too afraid of what will happen to them. Now that she has done it maybe other women will follow in her footsteps.
  • kelsi836 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I understand that wearing the hijab is important to this religion and this country, but isn't it going a little far by arresting her? What they are trying to prove is that the country has a power of fear over it's citizens, mostly it's women citizens. This shows the importance of how religion and state should be separate because if it was, she wouldn't have gotten arrested.
  • emma spidle on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon now that she took off her hijab maybe other women will follow in her footsteps
  • lmcdowell956 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon because, the woman shouldn't have to wear something they don't want to wear all the time.
  • lauren rambo on 18 Jan 17
     
    Nobody should be told what to believe or how to dress. This woman was simply expressing herself but was arrested for moral disagreements.
  • nate kliegl on 18 Jan 17
     
    Landon got it right by saying she should get the freedom to wear whatever. And no woman or man should be disgraced by what they wear
  • brettday on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Lauren on that people should have the freedom to dress how they want
  • kplowman702 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Lauren. The women should express herself in anyway she wants.
  • jakecolburn on 18 Jan 17
     
    This seems nuts. Like a spoof of middle eastern living on youtube. Does not seem real that a lady would be threatened with death and imprisoned for wearing a dress and coat. this is very different from my reality. I obviously think she should wear what she wants, it think the real issue is understanding that there is a large number of people that do not feel the same way.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 18 Jan 17
     
    She should have the freedom to dress how she wants and maybe others will follow her by dressing how they want.
  • hmiller403 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think she is brave to stand up for what she believes in, many women there are too scared to throw out the head scarfs and put on something that they feel nice in. I think she should be let free and allowed to wear whatever. There is no legal dress code there it's just considered taboo which is wrong.
  • jwelch096 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Landon because this woman is now facing death all because she wanted to make a statement for women.
  • Matthew E on 18 Jan 17
     
    Unfortunately for the Arabic culture this is illegal and is shamed. With our culture this would be welcomed because people are allowed to show their skin, but with them its shamed and its not going to change.
  • jwells549 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think it is unfair, sexist, and probably uncomfortable for the women. (Besides the constant torture, rape, imprisonment, etc etc that happens in saudi) they are being punished for wanting to be equal and expressing themselves.
  • kim bagshaw on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that the woman is trying to promote change however she did not do it in the right way. Her actions were wrong because if its just her doing it than it won't have as much of an impact as it would if 20 or more did it. However if she really wanted to not wear them than can she just move to a different place so she can. I will admit arresting her is silly and doesn't solve anything, it could promote not wearing them by arresting her if you think about it.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 18 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kim that she's trying to promote change, but I also understand that there are morals that the country believes women should follow. Instead of just her breaking the moral she should have gotten other women to join so there would have been more of an impact and something could have changed.
  • ebouvier878 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that even though it does not seem right, that is what the country believes and she knew that something was going to happen.
  • Alex Thacker on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think it's her freedom to dress how she wants and she shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab
  • ogomez1025 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I think that people have the right and free from what they want to wear only that it is not inappropriate to offend people depending also if they are in a place such as black people or other people of different ideologies and have some message discriminating That is a different way but for the rest, there is always freedom of expression and of being able to dress as one always wants and when one does not in a bad way.
  • bayleefox1 on 18 Jan 17
     
    I know it is their culture but the woman should get freedom, shouldn't be forced to wear the hijab all the time in public. It's a disgrace, you should be able to do/wear what you please.
  • amonge914 on 18 Jan 17
     
    It is so crazy how around the world women are held to higher or even lower expectations when it comes to, education, clothing, physically beauty and intelligence. How is it even possible to imagine a world where the clothes you wear lands you into jail? There is justice that needs to be served her to have an innocent women in jail. There has to be something that is done for the world when it comes to woman suffrage. The hard part isn't going through with a plan to do that, the hardest part is finding a plan-- to do just that.
21More

Kansas teen won't apologize to governor's office for Twitter post - CNN.com - 26 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Megan Funkhauser on 28 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • Samantha Myers on 28 Nov 11
     
    updated 1:49 AM EST, Mon November 28, 2011 (CNN) -- A high school senior, who faces a Monday morning deadline to apologize to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for a disparaging tweet, has said she will not write the apology letter.
  • ...18 more comments...
  • anonymous on 28 Nov 11
     
    Good story
  • Hannah Browning on 28 Nov 11
     
    I wouldn't apologize either, i think she's doing the right thing.
  • alexisprazak on 28 Nov 11
     
    Personally, I don't think he should be forced to apologize. Yes, his comments were hurtful, but as a public political figure you have to expect these kinds of negative comments. Plus, like the last line of the article said "the governor of Kansas has more important thing to worry about."
  • christian knight on 28 Nov 11
     
    very intristing
  • Ziada Karbowski on 28 Nov 11
     
    It wasn't meant for anybody but her friends, it was simply an accident. They shouldn't be so worried about it but she is right about freedom of speech. I wonder what's going to be done about it.
  • Lexi Raygor on 28 Nov 11
     
    I think she should at least apologize. Although free speech is an unalienable right, everyone should still share opinions in a respectful manner.
  • Kristin Molgaard on 28 Nov 11
     
    Interesting story.
  • Megan Rief on 28 Nov 11
     
    I like the story, its very interesting that the governor took the twitter post from the teenager to heart and requires an apology letter to be productive and move on, he should be focused on more important things.
  • Brian Williams on 28 Nov 11
     
    Not gonna lie, I've seen far worse things on Twitter.
  • Samantha Pike on 28 Nov 11
     
    I find this story very interesting, I do agree that we have freedom of speech. However lying is not in our Constitution. There are multiple worse things that are posted on Facebook, and Twitter.
  • Derek Large on 28 Nov 11
     
    When it takes a apology letter is needed to work with the gov then they need some one new to take that office. If it was his own kid then it is understandable. but when he does not know them then they shouldn't bother him as much as they have. and it is true that twitter holds many things that are far worse that deal with the gov't.
  • Bryan Pregon on 30 Nov 11
     
    Lots of comments on this story... looks like the Governor ended up making the apology... here is a followup article http://goo.gl/0IlO1
  • Brice Johnson on 01 Dec 11
     
    The girl was at no fault, even though she did not actually do the things she said in the tweet. Hundreds of millions of posts about politicians are posted every. If all of the politicians took the things said to heart the government would be in ever deeper trouble than they are now.
  • Cole Ragland on 03 Sep 13
     
    She should be able to say what she wants. Freedom of speech
  • ladasia on 04 Sep 13
     
    yeah, she should have used her words more wisely, but freedom of speech is a very important law as long as it is not abused. I'm glad everything worked out, and the gov. corrected himself.
  • Ryan Camden on 04 Sep 13
     
    that girl was a meanie bo-beanie
  • Sara Dunn on 06 Sep 13
     
    She should have the freedom to voice her opinion however she wants
  • Kayla Stottlemyer on 06 Sep 13
     
    Teenagers these days have no respect for adults and Authority.
  • Zach Standard on 06 Sep 13
     
    at least she was voicing her opinion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • jefferyduncan on 06 Sep 13
     
    she shouldn't even have to apologize for anything like freedom of expression so she has all right to post what ever she wants on twitter isn't that what it was made for to post things your thinking of or your opinion on something
17More

Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel - The Wash... - 33 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...aring-confederate-flag-apparel
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Apr 16
     
    "Virginia high school students suspended for wearing Confederate flag apparel"
  • ...14 more comments...
  • selena99 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I feel like they band the flag for racism not due to religion, which I understand. But what I also understand is wanting to be able to have the freedom to your religion. And in this case their flag represents that.
  • lizretikis on 12 Apr 16
     
    I honestly believe that it is an infringement on the first amendment and these students should have the right to wear what they want.
  • kadenroen on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think that they should have been able to wear the flag because it's their freedom and they were not doing it to be racist they just wanted to be able to wear what they want because its their right.
  • epond857 on 12 Apr 16
     
    thats so dumb they have the right to wear what ever they want as long as its appropriate to the school policy
  • morgandooty on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think the school was blowing it out of proportion. The students should have been able to wear the confederate flag. The confederate flag has historical significance. I think the school was biased. They were more concerned with the politics surrounding the flag, because it was a pretty debated subject for awhile.
  • bclayton731 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I feel like they shouldn't be able to wear confederate flag apparel mainly because it makes black students feel threatened and reminds them of slavery.
  • elijah57 on 12 Apr 16
     
    Students should be able to wear the flag because they have the right of freedom of expression. Like he said in the article just because he flies the flag doesn't mean he discriminates against race.
  • msap832 on 12 Apr 16
     
    I think they are wrong wearing something like that to school and they shouldn't be able too. The school is right for suspending them. Even if they have the freedom to wear what they want there is also school rules and dress codes and that is not school appropriate.
  • alyssaserrano on 12 Apr 16
     
    In the article the students say they are not trying to be racist but the just want to be able to wear what they want to wear, and i think they should be able to. Not every person who wears a confederate flag is racist or supports slavery or the war that was fought to keep slavery. Many people who live in the south have grown up with this flag as a part of their lives weather the true meaning was explained to them or not it was a big part in many peoples lives and you cant expect them to change how they feel about the flag because at one time not many people saw this flag as a big deal because people have a right to support what they believe in. also the flag was not just about slavery it was the symbol of the rebellion and many people who wear the flag had family members that were part of the rebellion and they support their family personally.
  • kgod152 on 12 Apr 16
     
    Very controversial, since the flag was a Representative for the south in the war, founded on hate. Though this is clothing so I guess they shouldn't have been suspended and from what the students say it's not about hate but rather than representing themselves, I suppose? Though I still think they should follow the dress code.
  • Bryan Pregon on 22 Sep 16
     
    Discuss this case from last year...
  • Jacob Jensen on 22 Sep 16
     
    It's so controversial, with whether it's about slavery or true pride of where you are from. As for me I see where the kids are coming from as to want to show their pride in where they're from, for example I will always have pride in the midwest. However if you are wearing the symbol to depersonalize another person, then yes the school had the right to take action.
  • mstiles522 on 22 Sep 16
     
    I believe they had a right to suspend them because it can be taken offensive to certain people but it also is a freedom of speech and what they believe. I think it causes conflict so they shouldn't be allowed and the school did the right thing.
  • Tanner Morriss on 22 Sep 16
     
    I think the school did have a right to suspend them, since the school has a history of the confederate flag causing fights between the students
  • emilbrath on 23 Sep 16
     
    It is important for schools to want and try to create a safe and learning environment for their students, and different students had different beliefs and ideas based on their own color and race.
  • mckennareese12 on 23 Sep 16
     
    I think that the school taking away this could of had an affect on how the kids reacted. If you think about it when someone tells you not to do something you have a slight urge to go against what they are saying. These kids probably wanted to do the same thing, maybe just because they wanted to get under their skin, not because they were standing up for what they believe in.
13More

Ohio Family's 'Graphic' Halloween Decorations Spark Neighborhood Uproar - CrimeFeed - 14 views

crimefeed.com/...-graphic-one-ohio-neighborhood bill Politics news
shared by camilaluther on 14 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • camilaluther on 14 Oct 15
     
    While gore and all things scary are common sights at this time of year, one Ohio family's Halloween display just might have gone too far. Located near a neighborhood elementary school, the Barrett family's graphic Halloween decorations have several residents concerned - with one local even contacting the city to have them removed.
  • ...10 more comments...
  • Julia Gibler on 21 Oct 15
     
    It would be a violation of the first amendment if the family was forced to remove their decorations, but I think they should , out of courtesy, tone it down a little bit because kids are being scared by it. And it doesn't really look like Halloween decorations it is just graphic and violent.
  • jjacobs079 on 21 Oct 15
     
    I think they should take it down since they live near a school and little kids probably walk past and get scared. I think it would be fine if they put it up on Halloween because other people are probably going to have scarier stuff out.
  • tiaross on 21 Oct 15
     
    I don't think they should have to take it down. Everyone decorates their houses in different ways and that is how they chose to decorate their house. What if someone had a blow pumpkin with a face that would be considered scary to a group of two year olds? Should that neighbor take down that blow up pumpkin?
  • amcintosh485 on 22 Oct 15
     
    I don't think the family should have to take this down. Everyone has their own views and opinions. I would be violating their freedom. They may be able to make it a little less scary for the children's sake but they shouldn't have too.
  • ryanlegg on 26 Oct 15
     
    well no person should destroy this, its a work of art, if parents don't like this they can make their children stay home or look away but this is and can be a form of speech. so it can be lowered but it can't be taken away.
  • seanveazie on 26 Oct 15
     
    This is their own option to make it scary. Parents should be able to shield their kids from what they don't agree with.
  • denniseram on 26 Oct 15
     
    Being forced to take it down would be a violation of their freedom of speech. They have the right to express themselves.
  • anthony309 on 26 Oct 15
     
    The family put a lot of work into their decoration.
  • Sunshine Wink on 26 Oct 15
     
    It really isn't fair for the family to have to take down their decorations, because some parents don't agree with it. If they don't agree with it they don't have to pay attention to it. The family shouldn't have to adjust their halloween fun and decorations to make someone else happy.
  • kaylawalden on 26 Oct 15
     
    The United States is based off the freedom of expression, and if the Ohio family wants to set up decorations for Halloween they are more than allowed to do so. Because of this freedom of expression it wouldn't be fair to have to take down their decorations.
  • katiepetersen005 on 26 Oct 15
     
    I do not think that the family has to take down the decorations because it is their house and they can decorate with what ever they want. However, even the smallest things can harm people. Just seeing a foam headstone can set someone off. Another note is that Halloween is mostly just for kids now so that would lean toward taking down the decorations.
  • chris563 on 26 Oct 15
     
    i don't think its right that people where getting mad at it because that's what Halloweens about horror and its suppose to look really and be scare that's the whole point of Halloween I don't think they should change anything
12More

Sex offenders sue state after being denied leftovers from their Satanic feast - 17 views

www.desmoinesregister.com/...4600133001
shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Mar 21
     
    "They allege DHS officials are infringing on their religious freedom by refusing to let them keep the leftovers from their "Night of Transformation feast," and by blocking access to written materials dealing with blood rituals, spells, vampirism and nudity."
  • ...9 more comments...
  • ataylor074 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think this is wrong, I don't think they have a right to sue. They were told the rules before they had their little event, which I don't think they should have gotten in the first place. They just didn't like that the rules were enforced, and now they are mad. They shouldn't get the luxuries that we do because they are serving time for their crimes.
  • allisonwalker on 08 Mar 21
     
    I don't think they have the right to sue the state. first of all, they were well aware of the rules before this event took place. It's also a health and safety issue with food being taken back to the living quarters. They are just mad they can't enjoy more of the luxury food they were given. Even though they are paying for the choices they made. So, they shouldn't have the right to sue.
  • peytongrenoble on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think they can cry about it. They didn't deserve anything in the first place. :D
  • bklopp601 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I don't think they have the right to sue the state, I might have read this wrong but I didn't see anything about the state doing something that would offend them.
  • eballenger on 08 Mar 21
     
    I don't think they can win this because it's not infringing any rights.
  • tsilva588 on 08 Mar 21
     
    They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state they shouldn't be. It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.
  • ericschmidtberge on 09 Mar 21
     
    Definitely an interesting headline. The claimants (being unjudgemental) feel that they had a religious act violated by the Government. It's a complicated manner because in a way the government did technically interfere with their religious freedoms because the Iowa Department of Human Services put the rule in place that inmates can´t take food into rooms for health reasons centrally not intending to block their freedom but instead concerned about safety and health. I think that even though in a way the claimants do have a point that their creepy and gross religious feast was blocked by the government I also think the rules that were put in place to protect everyone in the prison. Old food can cause sickness, rancid smells, and pests so it Could interfere with other inmates that had nothing to do with the group and therefore I think that the Iowa Department of Human Services is in the right and should win the case.
  • carsonschaa on 09 Mar 21
     
    They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state, they shouldn't be able to do that!! It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.
  • zeaksorensen on 15 Mar 21
     
    i think if they got their way with this then it causes problems with other prisoners trying the same thing.
  • saraivargas on 15 Mar 21
     
    They aren't allowed to enact on their religion if it prohibits others from doing day to day tasks and also hurts/kills others
  • hannahliwai on 15 Mar 21
     
    i agree with sarai. i guess you can worship whomever or whatever you choose. Also, when you are feasting for a "ritual", aren't the foods only used at that time? i mean traditionally... i don't know.
1More

Editorial: Half steps won't fix 'religious freedom' law - 0 views

www.indystar.com/...70747310
shared by jborwick on 01 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • jborwick on 01 Apr 15
     
    They're using the right word - "fix" - but will they end up in the right place? It's hard to tell. Gov. Mike Pence and House Speaker Brian Bosma each chose that word - "fix" - with purpose Tuesday as they sought to assure Hoosiers, the nation and the world that they and Senate leader David Long can revise the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure it's not a tool for discrimination.
1More

'Dictatorships often start in the face of a threat': UN privacy chief warns against lon... - 0 views

www.independent.co.uk/...-nations-privacy-a9438561.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 01 Apr 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 01 Apr 20
     
    "'Dictatorships often start in the face of a threat': UN privacy chief warns against long-lasting theft of freedoms amid coronavirus surveillance"
13More

Westboro Baptist Church Says It Will Picket Vigil For Connecticut School Shooting Victims - 1 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...school-shooting_n_2312186.html Government News HuffPost
shared by Jeremy Vogel on 17 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 17 Dec 12
     
    The Westboro Baptist Church, the controversial group known for protesting outside funerals of slain U.S. service members, announced that it will picket a vigil for the victims of Friday's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the second-deadliest school shooting in American history.
  • ...10 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 18 Dec 12
     
    KC news is reporting on petitions to have the Westboro Church classified as a hate group and remove their tax exempt status as a "church" http://fox4kc.com/2012/12/17/westboro-meets-its-match-thousands-sign-retaliatory-petitions/
  • patrick boian on 18 Dec 12
     
    I don't condone the activities of this group but they have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they want with it no matter how hateful it is and people could have private funerals
  • mdollen288 on 18 Dec 12
     
    They should leave people be, to bad they most likely never will, Because the parents can't even stop them without likely being sued by Westboro.
  • Ryan Loye on 18 Dec 12
     
    I do not agree with their way of think about homosexuals. I think that the church should mind their own business in their own sate. The parents and everyone should just ignore the Westboro Church.
  • garrett lee on 18 Dec 12
     
    i think we should ignore the group otherwise we are giving them the attention they want.
  • gharvey949 on 18 Dec 12
     
    It is sad that this church will stoop this low to get their (totally invalid) point across. They are a bunch of idiots if you ask me.
  • jessicavaldez on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think that they have the right to be there, but they should understand that this is not a good time to do this. They should understand how hard it must be for their parents, and would feel the same way if one of their children died. I also do not agree with the fact they blame homosexuality for all the problems and say God hates America. In reality God does not hate anyone because we are all his children.
  • Melissa Christensen on 18 Dec 12
     
    I can truly see the side of the Westboro Baptist Church but it does not mean that I agree with it. I find that America itself has quite a few strange beliefs itself defended by these rights. I don't have any means to go against these rights.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think that they have the ability to not allow the Church to protest.
  • Dylan Garner on 19 Dec 12
     
    I'm all for free speech. But I think there should definitely be a line drawn as where freedom of speech ends.
  • Mallory Huggins on 19 Dec 12
     
    I hope they lose their tax-exempt status. Here's an article with more information on their 501(c)3 status and how they could lose it. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/westboro_baptist_churchs_tax-exempt_status_challenged_20121218/ Personally, I think their protests are clearly staged with the intent to influence politics. (They want gay marriage outlawed)
  • dalton burk on 21 Dec 12
     
    well if the parents know they are gonna protest have the funeral be private so they can't protest
3More

Paul rips big government in farewell - The Hill's Video - 0 views

thehill.com/...-government-in-farewell-speech Government Politics congress paul farewell hill
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Dec 12
     
    "Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) delivered a blistering farewell speech on the House floor in which he ripped the drastic tilt of the U.S. toward expanded government, a devalued currency, persistent wars and the constant erosion of personal freedoms."
  • caseyyard on 13 Dec 12
     
    If Ron Paul knew when to shut up he would have been president. Instead he makes a completely good point then keeps talking and it makes him sound crazy.
  • Megan Frush on 13 Dec 12
     
    I think that a 16 page speech is a little much, even for a farewell speech. I do not think that it was very smart of him to bash on the government so much. The government is not at its best point but he is making it sound like it is the worst. Casey is right, Ron Paul did make a good point though.
3More

Oops, I left my sexual orientation at home - 5 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by Mallory Huggins on 19 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 22 Oct 12
     
    I think that is crazy, why people think that some people would choose to be tortured everyday is beyond me. I mean come on. I think this issue should just resolve like now, yes I understand that in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. But God made you who you are. People have to understand that, obviously there is a plan, it just hasn't showed itself to everyone yet. Being Homosexual is a life, if a Heterosexual stepped into a Homosexual's life for one day they would understand that they go through so much crap constantly. I think if it was just passed as a law people would forget about it. And everything in the world would be a lot less hectic. P.S.... I love the translation at the bottom!! That is hilarious!! :D
  • Jenny Ord on 23 Oct 12
     
    my whole view on this is that it is ridiculous. gay people should get their rights already.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    In all reality..... If Religion is your reason to say, "Being gay is not okay," then you really need to know your history. First, Christmas, if I recall the documentary that I watched not to long ago correctly, was a time for grown men to beat there wives, and go out and have "gay sex" with each other? So, if you denounce gay marriage because of Catholicism, or Christianity, you just denounced Christmas. Second, for those of you who are Hindustan, you have a celebrated holiday that is for 2 guys, and 1 girl, to "get it on." It's called Karma Sutra. Yeah, religion should not be allowed to interfere in America's choice to permit/deny gay marriage, and not just for those 2 reasons. (Those reasons being that the religions allow it themselves, yet say it is not okay.) Let's just read out constitution. We've all heard, "Freedom of Religion," before, right? Well, right there, religion should not be allowed to found a reason as to deny gay relationships. To add, let us look at the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness includes marriage correct? If so, define marriage Religion definition: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Actual definition: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Just by out constitutional Freedoms, and foundations, most of it points in the direction of gay marriage should be legal, which Jenny, is why I agree with you. As for being gay being something you can fix, don't think so. I don't see people changing there skin color. (Except Micheal Jackson, but we all still know that he was not as light-toned as that.) Do you see people choosing there eye color? Either that is one expensive (or failed) surgery, or it does not happen. I don't think you are capable of changing the way someone is born, (unless it changes your physical appearance, which does not change you
1More

3D-Printed Gun Files Aren't Free Speech, Court Rules | Popular Science - 8 views

www.popsci.com/ns-not-free-speech-court-rules
shared by Bryan Pregon on 25 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 25 Sep 16
     
    "The first two protections in the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantee freedom of speech and a right to bear arms, respectively. But what about when those collide?"
6More

Virginia deputy fights his firing over a Facebook 'like' - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html Facebook CNN Politics
shared by Jeremy Vogel on 10 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 10 Sep 12
     
    A Virginia sheriff's deputy has been fired for liking his boss's political opponent -- on Facebook.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Katelyn Owen on 10 Sep 12
     
    I think that facebook is becoming a problem. Its beginning to take over peoples lives and now its affecting peoples jobs just because of liking something your boss doesn't approve of. Something needs to change about that.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    That judge is wrong. Freedom of expression is allowed to be shown through a political campaign, and in no way should he be fired because he is stating an opinion on facebook, something that is protected in our first amendment.
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    This case is complicated because working as a deputy is a government job, but to me this case is more about work law than freedom of speech. Here an excerpt of an article on the Iowa Dept of Labor Q/A page: Q. Can my employer fire me without a reason? A. Yes. Iowa is an "employment-at-will" state, meaning that an employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. You may have grounds for legal action if the employer fires you: 1. based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability; 2. for certain "whistle blower" actions such as filing OSHA complaints. 3. contrary to an applicable employment contract; 4. for attempting to comply with applicable government regulations, such as health codes in restaurants This case is in Virginia (not sure about their laws) but in Iowa I feel like the deputy would be out of a job.
  • Jaacob Tatta on 18 Sep 12
     
    A person has the right to like whoever they want on Facebook.
  • Jaidlyn Bookout on 18 Sep 12
     
    I feel like the deputy should be able to "like" whatever he wants, on facebook or not. I don't think it is right for him to be fired just for liking it.
1More

Iran accuses seized foreign ship of 'peculiar' activity - CNNPolitics.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by peytonjs on 07 May 15 - No Cached
  • peytonjs on 07 May 15
     
    Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, speaking at New York University, stressed that his country is committed to upholding the freedom of navigation even though it is still detaining the Marshall Islands-flagged Maersk Tigris vessel. "For us, the Persian Gulf is our lifeline," Mohammad Javad Zarif said, "and nothing is more important for us than freedom of navigation in those waters."
1More

How people in Muslim countries prefer women to dress in public | Pew Research Center - 0 views

www.pewresearch.org/...-for-women-in-muslim-countries
shared by Bryan Pregon on 09 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 Jan 14
     
    "An important issue in the Muslim world is how women should dress in public." Not specifically government topic, but if we consider our freedoms compared with countries throughout the world, these comparisons are interesting!
1More

Nobel Peace Prize Winners Want Barack Obama to Release Torture Report - 2 views

time.com/...ace-prize-torture-barack-obama
shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 Oct 14
     
    "Say American leaders have "eroded the very freedoms and rights that generations of their young gave their lives to defend""
2More

What if the Government Fears Freedom? - 7 views

reason.com/...the-government-fears-freedom
shared by desertratt on 19 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • desertratt on 19 Mar 15
     
    What if the current massive spying on Americans began with an innocent secret executive order signed by President Reagan in 1986? What if Reagan contemplated that he was only authorizing American spies to spy on foreign spies unlawfully present in the U.S.? What if Reagan knew and respected the history of the Fourth Amendment?
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 15
     
    Interesting opinion. This article makes me reflect on that balance between our government keeping us safe and invading our privacy. Strange in a way to think that Americans have been having this battle with our own government since the Revolutionary War!
12More

Egypt student gets 3-year jail term for atheism - 18 views

news.yahoo.com/il-term-atheism-152045172.html
shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Jan 15
     
    " "
  • ...9 more comments...
  • pkleppe761 on 12 Jan 15
     
    Reading this article makes me feel very grateful that I live in American where I can speak freely about whatever I want and believe in any religion I choose. It's sad that because some one has different beliefs than others, they are charged and put into jail.
  • djones036 on 12 Jan 15
     
    I think the kid shouldn't be put in jail for this because he is just expressing himself through his beliefs. I'm glad I live in a place where I can have my own thoughts. I can't imagine being put in jail for my view of religion.
  • amcclain946 on 13 Jan 15
     
    It honestly makes me cringe when I read that this student was put in jail for expressing himself through his own beliefs. I understand that it's against Egypt's constitution, but I think that they should be able to express their own beliefs....in every country! I'm thankful to live in America because I'm able to express my own beliefs and be apart of any religion I choose to be without being put in jail. I'm grateful.
  • deanaroth on 13 Jan 15
     
    As an American, we know what freedom is. It is sad to see that other countries truly don't get the ooportunities that we do. It's sad that a child cannot ever truly express himself.
  • darianhubbard on 13 Jan 15
     
    Reading this makes me quite sad to be honest. And also makes me very grateful to live in a country where its founders believed that everyone should have a right to have whatever religion they wish. A 3 year jail sentence is used for more extreme things here in America, but in Egypt it is obviously a major offense.
  • chrislindqvist on 13 Jan 15
     
    I think this is wrong in so many ways and I feel very happy that I live in a country where I can say,write and think what I want without getting in trouble with the government. These countries limiting the capacity of a human which makes them to almost robots
  • samanthaahern on 13 Jan 15
     
    I think this is wrong but I do think they should be able to express their religion
  • austin807 on 20 Jan 15
     
    They should be able to express their religion
  • estuckey767 on 20 Jan 15
     
    I think that people should be able to have their own beliefes and should not be forced to believe in something. I think making him go to jail is a bit exteme. This makes me gratful that I live in a country where I can express my beliefes and not be punished because they may be different than someone elses.
  • Sydney Wilson on 29 Jan 15
     
    I think it's awful that these people aren't able to express openly what religion they are and get put in jail when they do.
  • tcomulada881 on 16 Feb 15
     
    They shouldn't of put him to jail for 3 years. I know they don't have the freedom to express their religions if they aren't the main religions but 3 years is way to long for something so small.
5More

Pence signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com - 5 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html
shared by rylanrichards on 27 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • rylanrichards on 27 Mar 15
     
    "We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees," NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement Thursday afternoon. He said the NCAA will "work diligently" to ensure competitors and visitors at next week's Final Four are not "negatively impacted by this bill."
  • ...2 more comments...
  • rduncan264 on 27 Mar 15
     
    Expressing you religion is I think is fair but rejecting gays publicly isn't. It is setting a bad example to our public and generations to come. By allowing the option it's is basically telling others it's ok not reject gays when it's wrong to do.
  • cschnackel824 on 27 Mar 15
     
    This is just wrong. No human should be sent away if they are willing to spend money at your business, especially if they are gay. People should be free.
  • ccannon666 on 27 Mar 15
     
    Religious freedom? The bible says "Love Thy Neighbour", not shame them and deny them for who they are. It also isn't fair that the sports players are effected by one man's decision.
  • britthutch12 on 27 Mar 15
     
    I think it is ridiculous that anyone is still being discriminated this kind of stuff. It's something that isn't new, people need to be more open minded and worry so much about what others are doing.
1 - 20 of 55 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page