Other
Ryter
Articles:
The Two Kerry's:
War Hero or
Traitor? (Related)
"Men in Black" The
Cult of The Judges (Related) "Men in Black" The
Cult of The Judges
State
Dept. Still Promoting Islam (Related) State
Dept. Still Promoting Islam
George's
CIA Filly (Related) George's
CIA Filly
Is Preparing To Print 'Colorful' Money For The Western Hemisphere (Related)
More
Ryter
Articles: (Related) More
Ryter
Articles:
9 TH
CIRCUIT HATE SPEECH
By
Jon Christian Ryter
June
20, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
On
Oct. 11, 2002 a group of homosexual employees at the City of Oakland,
California's Community & Economic Development Agency were given
permission by Joyce Hicks, the Deputy Executive Director of the agency,
to access the City of Oakland's email system to invite city employees
to attend the the "National Coming Out Day" rally for gays and
lesbians that afternoon. Attendees were asked to bring banners and placards
to show that the gay and lesbian spirit thrived in Oakland. Not only
was the email received by any homosexual or lesbian working for the
city, it was also received by every straight person working for the
city as well. A few of them were none to happy to see what they viewed
as an inflammatory email in their mail boxes,
Two
of those city employees, Regina Redferford and Robin Christywho just
happened to be Christianswere among those who were offended by the
brazeness of the homosexual and lesbiansand the city officials who
allowed them to blanket city employees with their inivitation to attend
a gay and lesbian rally later that afternoon. They fumed about it through
the fall. By Christmas they decided on a course of action. In January,
2003 they launched their "answer" to "National Coming Out Day."
It was a family values organization called the Good News Employee
Association for the benefit of straight city employees.
Rederford
and Christy posted their new organization on an Oakland city electronic
bulletin boardthe same one used by the gay and lesbian group to not
only promote homosexuality, but to denouce the War in Iraq, and accuse
Christians of racism against homosexuals. None of the topics posted
by GNEA should ever have been construed by reasonable minds as hate
speech since they dealt with family values, Christian marriage, and
natural family life. They created a flyer which said: "Preserve our
workplace with integrity. Good News Employee Association is a forum
for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues
of the day, adding that GNEA was opposed "...to all views which seek
to redefine the natural family and marriage, which is defined as a union
of a man and a woman, according to California State law."
The
website encouraged local residents who agreed with their position to
contact them. One of the flyers was posted by a photocopier at CEDA.
A lesbian employee, Judith Jennings, took offense to the poster and
notified her superior. A building supervisor who reports to Joyce Hicks,
Calvin Wong (not named int he action) removed the poster because he
believed it violated the city's antidiscrimination regulations. In the
complaint Jennings filed against Rederford and Christy with her workplace
superviser, Hicks, she said the homophobic poster made her feel "targeted"
and "excluded." (Of course, the same could be said for Rederford and
Christy who could logically argue that they felt targeted and excluded
by the homosexual community's PR campaign in Oakland that accuses Bible-believing
heterosexuals of bias and "homophobia" whenever they attempt to exercise
their First Amendment right to speak out on the merits of the Biblical
heterosexual lifestyle and traditional family values.)
Shortly
after the poster incident Rederford and Christy were ordered by their
supervisor Hicks and, tacitly, City Manager Bobbwho enforces city policy
(and who is now the City Adminisrtrator and Deputy Mayor of Washington,
DC)to remove their posting from the city's internet bulletin board.
The pair received a warning that the posting of "homophobic" material
on the bulletin could "...lead to penalties up to and including dismissal."
Instead of backing down, Rederford and Christy filed a lawsuit against
Hicks, Bobb and the City of Oakland for violating their First Amendment
right to free speech. The suit was filed in the US District Court for
Northern California. In his opinion, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that
because GNEA defined "traditional marriage" as a union between a man
and a woman, that "...Plaintiffs' deposition testimony confrims the
anti-homosexual import of their definition of a 'traditional family'."
In Walker's view, by excluding homosexuals from inclusion in the definition
of a "traditional family," GNEA engaged in hate speech and promoted
a hate agenda. When homosexuals promote gay and lesbian marriage, they
are also engaging in exclusion since, by its nature, gay and lesbian
"marriages" entail a union between two males or two females. Why is
the defense of traditional marriage hate speech, and the defense of
homosexual marriage not hate speech? Both are merely "position" debates.
However, since the federal government has embarked on an agenda of promoting
homosexuality as a means of birth control, it serves their purpose to
label Bible-believing Christians as hate-mongers.
According
to Walker, employersparticularly when they are government agenciespossess
the prerogative to define what hate speech is, and when it occurs. Since
CETA defined the content of poster as hate speech, the court agreed
with the City of Oakland's assessment. With respect to violating the
First Amendment rights of Rederford and Christy, the Court argued that
since the pair have alternate channels through which to publish their
traditional family message, their First Amendment rights were not violated.
Furthermore, Christy was told by Bobb's office that GNEA could continue
to post on the city's websiteproviding she removed any references that
are offensive to "gay people." Thus, in the court's view, they were
not deprived of the right to use the website. Of course, with their
message censored to remove the hate speech terminology"natural family,"
"family values," and "marriage," all they would be able to post would
be the group's name and addressbut not the reason they existed.
Sadly,
by co-mingling international law into the US Code, the US federal court
system has succeeded in converting the unconditional rights and liberty
possessed by Americans under the Bill of Rights into the conditional
rights found in the UN Declaration on Human Rights . Under the
First Amendment, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibing the free exercise thereof, or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully
to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
All of the restrictions are placed on government. None on the people.
However,
in Articles 13 and 14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights , we
see the restrictions are shifted to the people with government serving
as the grantor of conditional rightsand possessing the right to arbitrarily
alter those rights whenever it deems necessary. Article 13 says: "Freedom
to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations
that are prescribed by law." Article 14 says: "The right to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas carries with it special duties
and responsibilitie, and restrictions, but these shall be only as such
as are provided by law."
There
has never been an amendment offered to alter our religious or civil
liberty prerogatives under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the courts
no longer interpret our rights under the First Amendment as unconditional.
Our "rights" are construed to be those provided under Articles 13 and
14 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights. How did it happen? The federal
court system has codified the UN Declaration on Human Rights ,
and now couples it with the Bill of Rights when they define what your
rightsand mineare in Bill of Rights cases. Constitutional issues that
were black and white a hundred years ago are now a very muddy grey.
And, that's where the federal judiciary wants them.
If
any Congressman or Senator even openly proposed abrogating your right
to speak your mind on any issue, that politician would be tarred and
feathered and summarily run out of Washington. Yet, the courts have
succeeded in doing it without anyone even blinking an eye. How did it
happen? We continue electing liberal Senators and liberal presidents
who continue to nominate far left jurists who should not be sitting
as a judge in traffic court to the highest federal judgeships in the
land. They enter the federal judiciary with a mandate to "update" the
US Constitution by erasing a few rights that the far left does not believe
we need in a modern, transnational society. As long as we put liberalswhether
Democrat or Republicanin office, our rights will continue to be erased.
The far left minorities who are benefiting from these court decisions
today will fall victim to their own allies down the road. Because once
the rights of the majority are stripped from them, the rights of the
minority will be gone, too. And we will all become the human chattel
of the New World Order. (Note to Libertarians: the answer is not
voting for third party candidates who cannot be elected since the conservative
vote drain will always elect the most dangerous far left candidate standing.
Our job is to fight to get those anti-big government candidates nominated
on one of the two major partiesand then back that candidate all the
way to the White House or the Senate.)
That,
of course, is the reason Rederford and Christy lost their law suit in
US District Court, and that is also why they also lost their appeal
to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The US District Court disagreed
with their position that their right to free speech was denied bcause
they had other avenues to promote their message. The 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals, on the other handlooking at Article 14 and not the First
Amendment, determined that the the free speech rights of people must
take a back seat to the "legitimate administrative interests" of government.
The 9th Circuit understood something the US District Court hadn't graspedthe
Bill of Rights has been replaced with a universal doctrinethe UN
Covenant on Human Rights . And with that doctrine comes the "greater
freedoms" of the communist-slanted totalitarian Orwellian New World
Order.
The
Pro-Family Law Center of Temecula, California which represented
GNEA in its appeal to the 9th Circuit on Feb. 15 of this year, is preparing
to take this case to the US Supreme Court. When the 9th Circuit issued
its ruling on March 6, 2007, Richard D. Ackerman, the president of the
Pro-Family Law Center and its chief litagator, noted that "...[t]his
incredible and devastating ruling has had the practical effect of silencing
hundreds...of City of Oakland employees who simply wish to talk about
marriage and family values."
And
while the 9th Cicuit's legal ruling in Good News Employee Association
v Joyce M. Hicks et al (Docket # 05-15467) is labeled as a "Memorandum"
not for publication (except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3), it is
a legal decision and is binding on everyone within the jurisdiction
of the 9th Circuit.
The
9th Circuit Judges, Betty Binns Fletcher (a Jimmy Carter appointee),
Richard Clifton (a George W. Bush appointee) and Sandra Ikuta (also
a George W. Bush appointee), ruled that the GNEA argument had no merit
since public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long
as the legitimate administrative interests of the government agency
outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech. In the view of
the Founding Fathers, government's interests never outweigh the free
speech rights of the private citizen. Free speech, and the right to
own firearms, is what guarantees the American citizen liberty. The minute
the government ceases to fear the ability of the public to take back
the power it grants those it elects, liberty ceases to exist and tyranny
reigns instead.
2007 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights
Reserved
[Read "Whatever
Happened to America? (Related) "]
Sign
Up For Free E-Mail Alerts (Related) Sign
Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails
are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a
former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored
a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s
until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban
markets in the United States.
Today, Jon is an advertising
executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com (Related)
has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington
insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use
both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on
his website.
E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com (Related)
Shortly after the poster incident Rederford and Christy were ordered by
their supervisor Hicks and, tacitly, City Manager Bobbwho enforces city
policy (and who is now the City Adminisrtrator and Deputy Mayor of Washington,
DC)to remove their posting from the city's internet bulletin board.
No comments:
Post a Comment