PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: FORBIDDEN SPEECH?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to re-hear its decision declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes the phrase "under God." The court found this a violation of the Establishment Clause, by which the government may not "respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." The court did retreat from its previous holding that the 1954 act of Congress adding the words to the pledge was itself unconstitutional. But it stood by its ruling that the pledge must not be recited in the public schools.

The remarkable thing about this decision is that is declared a certain act of speech, by itself, unconstitutional. As far as I know, never before in history has a specific set of words, a speech, a ritual, been declared unconstitutional, as opposed to an action of government or some requirement. For example, the Supreme Court ruled many years ago that no one can be forced to recite the Pledge against his or her will. It is not an act of coercion being ruled unconstitutional, but rather a thought or a concept. It is not even an act "respecting an establishment of religion," by which was meant giving a preferred status to a particular denomination, as many colonies and states did before the Constitution was adopted. "Under God" is merely an expression of the common belief in a deity, irrespective of any particular religion or denomination. "God" could be the Lord, or Yahweh, or Allah, or any other deity one chooses. For that matter, one can simply omit the words if one chooses, and no one in government could say anything about it.

If the pledge is unconstitutional, then surely it is also unconstitutional to display the Declaration of Independence, less children be shocked by its appeal to "the laws of Nature and Nature's God."

It is wrong to force people to say things they don’t believe. It is also wrong to prohibit people from saying what they believe. Most people in America believe in the words of the pledge. In the Ninth Circuit, however, the pledge of allegiance has become forbidden speech – a concept that is itself unacceptable in the United States.

DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK DENIES CONSTITUENT SERVICES

Various Hollywood celebrities led by Martin Sheen (a make-believe President) launched a denial-of-service attack on Capitol Hill this week. The celebs depicted the assault as a "virtual protest." What it amounted to was an attempt to tie up the phone and fax lines of the House and Senate to serve a a protest against the impending war with Iraq. It was not analogous, however, to a real protest, in which people speak their minds and contact their elected representatives, exercising their right "peaceably to assemble and petition the government for the redress of their grievances." It was analogous to a computer-based "denial of service" attack, in which the computer generates thousands of messages to a server in an attempt to shut it down. The celebrities DOS attack was reportedly successful to some degree and tied up the lines for some periods of time.

Now, the typical caller to Capitol Hill is not an oil baron or a Pentagon general. She is a little old lady trying to find out what happened to her Social Security check. Congressional offices fields thousands of such requests every year. They also get enormous amounts of traffic from constituents and interest groups on a host of other issues. All those folks have just as much right to petition Congress as Martin Sheen. All he and the other celebs were doing was denying other people their rights to contact the government. Why is it that some people feel they cannot exercise their rights without denying those same rights to others? No wonder America largely ignores the celebs when they attempt to speak on The Issues.

COURT AFFIRMS FREE SPEECH OF ABORTION PROTESTORS AGAINST "RICO" LAW
The Supreme Court ruled today that the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law cannot be used to suppress the free speech rights of anti-abortion protestors. The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been trying for 17 years to shut down anti-abortion protests by using civil actions under the statute. NOW's attempt was typical of the efforts made by many groups these days to use legal tools, political pressure, and other means to shut off the flow of free speech.

Unfortunately, almost nobody these days really believes in free speech and most people willingly make excuses for infringements on our rights. At a time when people can communicate as never before, attacks on free speech reach more people than ever. The point of this blog will be to report and comment on the latest developments in free speech rights and expose the efforts of those who would prevent honest citizens from saying what they choose or punish them for saying it.

dick lobb