"Barnabas Fund has today launched a major campaign raising concerns on laws proposed by the British government to ban incitement to religious hatred. The Fund echoes the fears of many senior lawyers, MPs, peers, human rights groups and civil liberties organizations who believe such laws could pose a major threat to free speech."
[...]
"Fears that the law could be a major blow to freedom of speech are not based on speculation alone, but from direct evidence from Victoria, Australia, where two Christian pastors have already found themselves in court under a similar law after raising human rights concerns about Islamic teaching on a website and at a seminar. They are accused of stirring up hatred against Muslims despite the fact that both repeatedly emphasised that Christians should show nothing but love to Muslims."
Source

The spread of hate against another group of humans is the cause for millions of deaths. To ride our world of hate could be a wonderful thing, but to create rules and regulations about what you can and cannot say, could have disastrous effects on the freedom of speech; and not only in regards to religion but in all forms of expression.

Remember the U.S. constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof […]

This means, does it not (?), that if a religion so happens to hate another group of people for whatever reason, they have the right to hate on them – verbally of course, because murder is a crime.

If we do create more laws prohibiting the incitement to religious hatred, where will we stop our ability to mute the public? Simply put, in time, people on this forum alone could be prosecuted for their accidental politically incorrect statements against a group of people.

Freedom of speech is a fine idea, sadly it is un-workable. Too often the right to free speech is used as an excuse to be downright offensive.

In a perfect world, freedom of speech would be freedom to express. That way any-one who took away someones right to express would be more likely to be less accepted socialy.



Take it from any mod on the net, the right to freedom of speech is sadly all to often misused as a right to spout hate.

I would say that I have to right to hate if I so choose to as long as I am not physically hurting anyone. I do not have to right to incite a riot to cause harm to others but curbing speech to keep an opinion or a point of view that you disagree with from being heard is wrong. where would it stop? who's definition of hate speech are you going to use? can you no longer speak against the government? or are you just upset because of religious rules that are tying to keep religion out of school and government?

I think the line needs to be drawn when somebody encroaches on someone else's beliefs. For instance, it is o.k to hate, but it would not be o.k. to follow someone around to show them repeatedly how much you hate them. You then encroach on their freedom. And sadly this is where the whole freedom of speech argument is used the most.

What do you mean by follow someone around? are you talking literally? Are you saying that if I have say a convicted child molester living across the street from me I shouldn't have the right to make an issue of them living there? Unless someone is specifically harming you then they have the right to say as what they want unless it is untrue that is, here there are things like slander and harassment to prevent people from following you around. But for me to not have the right to speak my mind freely for or against anything i wish would just be wrong. I rather enjoy knowing that the same freedom that allows people to speak against something gives me the freedom to speak for it without fear of prosecution or harm (well legal anyway)

This is a tough one. On one side you have people like Rev. Fred Phelps whom we would like to see convicted under a law like this, on the other side we have the we have the Ku Kux Clan (who are a christian organization) that would be protected by this law. To have free speech we must put up with bad as well as the good. I know one thing UM would have to do away with the S vs S board.

So then, by this statement, you would have no problem if I 'followed" you around this forum, every time you posted something, stating "bacca is ignorant"?

Where does free speech end, and harrassment begin? Your example of a child molester is very pertinent. If you tell people the fact that he was convicted of child molesting, and restrict yourself to factual information, you are exercising your right to free speech in a responsible manner.

If however, you posted signs, and followed him whereever he went, announcing to all and sundry his crimes, then you are harrassing the individual.

Lets take another example. You find out that a same sex couple has moved into your neighborhood. Do people have a right to stand on the street outside their abode, chanting that "god hates gays"? Are they exercising free speech, or are they harassing someone who has different values?

Yes if i choose to stand outside and scream at the top of my lungs that there is a gay couple and that it is wrong that is my right......If I am a member of the KKK then I have the right to say i am and to speak as I wish freely about it just as it is your right not to listen. You can post flyers about a sex offender there isn't' anything wrong with that if you so choose to, people do it, you can look up the listings on the web and find out name address and crimes with little to no difficulty. No one is making you listen to or follow what others say but it is their right to say it whether you agree with it or not. As i said whos version of right and wrong would be allowed? To what point would you allow people to speak? can I no longer speak up about government? can I not question a school system that is trying to teach my son about something that is a faith issue? Should I be forced to go one way because I don't have the right now to speak out against something? And what happens to me if I don't stop talking? Freedom of speech may annoy you or irritate you at times and you have the right to say it does don't you? without that you'd have to shut up and take whatever it is that the party who decides what can and cannot be spoken of wants, and I for one do not want that........

I have to go along with you thinking on this. Perhaps a better question would be what should be considered to be "incitement to riot" from a rational standpoint. To many Muslims, anything that is or could be considered an insult of Mohammad is incitement to riot. Just suggesting that Mohammad could have been wrong about anything at all, in the least way, is reason to riot and kill people. To say that Mohammad had any human failings is reason to riot and kill people. Should any person who answers words with violence be considered rational at all? In my opinion, no. Arguments are only words, after all, and to answer words with violence is what should be condemned. No matter how badly I am insulted, I should not be excused from answering the insult with a violent act.

baca: the problem with your approach is that harm can be done without phycical attacks or rioting. i am sure you have heard the old saying that emotional scars last forever.

larry: you certianly have some strong stereotypes of muslims.

no hyper the only thing that can harm you is if you let it, if you believe what others say. I am not responsible for you taking anything said and letting it scar you it's not my job to worry about that. I have the right to speak as i wish.....Why should I have to not say that I don't have a problem with gay marriage or interracial relationships, I don't care what religion you are or if you have an abortion or not, I worry about me and mine and so should everyone else.....

Hyper do you really want to have to think about legal ramifications before you tell your childs school that you do not want them questioning your twelve your old about their sexual relationships? or teaching them that the world was created by god? At what point do I need to watch what i say? who should I be worried about hurting or offending? are people really that thin skinned that someone disagreeing with them will send them into social tendencies? I'm offended by people getting offended so easily about someone not agreeing with them. I think it's sick that anyone would even entertain the idea that free speech could be a bad thing when they only reason they have a right to say its bad is that they have it in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!

Does the right to free speech allow you to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, if there is no fire?

*grumbles* Well hell.. if the pope can fire more hate by blaming pagans for the hallocuast...
Or wording it in a way that it's enough to make his oh so loyal followers to interprate it as such... -.-

what exactly would you like to limit? and again who is going to make the choice of what is done to those who don't comply?

bacca:

what you propose is recklessness! in a social order we all have to take responsibility for our actions (this includes our words). it is not a right to free speech, but a privilege to have free speech granted by our exercising responsibility for ourselves. people have the ability to demonstrate empathy. it is not about you not being able to express agreement or disagreement on a topic, but about you not making it personal. how much does it take to make someone feel uncomfortable? humans, as social animals naturally identify when they are shunned by the social group. to not "feel" the effects of social order then people would have to cease to be social animals (at a biological level). this would free you to say anything you want without responsiblity, but it will come at the cost of the social structure. if people want to live together in any kind of harmony, then everybody has to sacrifice a little to gain the benefits of society.

Stereotypes? I just read the news, is all. Happens with Muslims on a regular basis, they feel insulted in some way, and riot and kill those about them . . . other Muslims included, and Muslim authorities do nothing about it. I don't see this same thing happening on any regular (if at all) basis with those of other religions. I also don't see religious leaders of other religions telling their followers that it is their religious duty to kill someone. Muslims do that fairly often in fatwas announced by religious clerics. I could understand religious directives to not sin, but religious directives to kill a specific individual? Yet that seems the way of Islam.

And the pendulum starts it's swing to the other side of freedom of speech........

Soon the world will find themselves under another dictatorship......hmmm
wonder what the Pope is doing these days......

hyperactive: it is not a right to free speech, but a privilege to have free speech granted by our exercising responsibility for ourselves

US Constitution

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Regardless of what you say, freedom of speech is defined in the Bill of Rights as a right, not a privilege

This is what the Pope's been doing these days.

Hurrah for breeding more hatred!

bacca & larry: yes, your constitution defines it as a right. there lies a difference in opinion. i am from the socialist democracy of soviet cannukistan!

rights can not exist without responsibility. how many people complain about a world were people are only concerned about themselves? hmmm..... that is what you get when you make a claim of rights without personal responsibility.

Since my constitution defines free speech as a right, and forbids Congress to abridge that right, it is not a claim I make . . . it is fact . . . freedom of speech in the USA is a right of all. Just as being secure in my person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures are rights I have due only to the Constitution. It makes no difference if my papers are even treasonable . . . without showing reasonable cause, those papers are private and not subject to review by others. These rights exist regardless of any responsibility I personally have or don't have.

use your right speech in the right way im fine with it

use your right speech the wrong way simple get your ass kicked

referring to stereotype bitc* larry

Just an observation, not a attack, but there are a lot of Me, myself and "I"'s in this post. What about the "We" part of the arguement, like "We the people"?

When the Q'uran is revised to take out the references to killiing others, when it ceases to have as a basic tenet the forcing of others to submit to Allah, when it removes the references which say it is OK to beat women and otherwise treat them as inferiors, I will be willing to consider it as a religion of peace. As long as these sorts of things remain, I will not. This isn't about stereotypes . . . it is about the fact that the Q'uran is the holy book of Islam and does have these brutal instructions in it. Please tell me of another religion whereby specified individuals are condemned to death by direction of a religious cleric, with no trial whatsoever. I can't think of one, but have read in the past year of fatwas whereby that was done by religious clerics of the faith of Islam. Does Salmon Rushdie ring any bells to you? Bookstores that sold The Satanic Verses were firebombed, riots broke out in areas where it was believed Rushdie was staying and two of the book's translators were stabbed. Taslima Nasrin, whose work confronts Shariah, or Islamic law, and the role of women in Muslim societies, in particular Bangladesh, has had a fatwa "death warrant" on her head since 1993. A Dutch Muslim woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, had to flee the Netherlands because she said that Muslim men traditionally oppressed Muslim women. A death fatwa quickly followed. Likewise, a Sudanese writer, Kola Boof, whose detailed exposition of Christian slavery in her native country has taken refuge in the U.S. after fawta was issued sentencing her to death by beheading. Deprived women in many tyrannical Mulsim nations do not possess the luxury of exile, and have fallen casualty to fatwas passed by mullahs ranging from death by stoning to burning. This practice of issuing death sentences by fatwa, and the brutal deaths which result, is not unusual, but is a barbaric but normal part of the ongoing religion of Islam. Why should I think it is a "peaceful" religion?

Turtle: Just an observation, not a attack, but there are a lot of Me, myself and "I"'s in this post. What about the "We" part of the arguement, like "We the people"?

I was speaking for myself, as a citizen of the United States of America. The "we" part is of course true, but only for people residing in the USA. "We the People" of the UK have no such rights, as everything they do is by permission of their Parliment, which can be changed at any time by the whim of the politicians. As for saladins follower, you don't like what I say, so you threaten me with violent action. If figures. Should I fear a fatwa issued by you? If you were a religious cleric of Islam, I might well have cause to fear such a fatwa.

Do you consider any religion to be the religion of peace? The Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths are nowhere near a religion of peace. All of them inherently support the act of defense in one way or another; thus, they support blood shed in some form.



In the Islamic faith, I have learned that the act of war in defense is completely acceptable (in guidelines of course) in the eyes of Allah. It seems that this late 3rd addition to the Abrahamic religion was able to understand that defense is necessary. Were as in the Christian faith has strong words like “thou shall not kill”, they have to create some amendments (contradictions) to their core doctrine in order to kill.

As I learn more and more about the Islamic past and present, I am beginning to believe that in the core of the Islamic faith lies a doctrine that is remarkably more sane and rational than the Bible could ever be. More …

The point is, Islam is labeled as "the religion of the sword", when in truth the people who propagate this idea (America and friends), have relatively no education and understanding of history, religion and politics. These people hardly know where they come from, let alone the plight of mankind from 10,000 B.C.E to date.

I really cannot believe that Islam is more destructive than Christianity or Judaism. Give any one of these groups power over one another and history has proven that they will all stab each other in the back. Religion is not to be trusted as easily as man is not to be trusted.

Thus, we must never let the freedom of speech be controlled; the early Americans knew this and wrote it in blatantly with out encryption. To stop the words of the people is to let the few control the many. Regardless of the internet and satellites that orbit the globe and allow man to spread his words like wildfire, man must never let man hinder his voice!

If we have an incident of man hating on man in the masses or spreading hate because one does not sleep with the opposite sex, we obviously have a greater problem then free speech. Let us solve the root of our problems vs removing freedoms that make us a more civilized world.

Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. Look back to Christianity 1400 years ago. It wasn't exactly the religion it is today. It is my personal belief that the reason Islam seems more violent than other religions, specifically Christianity, is that it is simply younger. It has not had the same amount of time to develop. In the past (and even, sadly, still today), some Christians used the bible to murder, enslave and commit innumerable other atrocities just as some Muslims use the Quran today. Because Christianity has had 600 more years to develop, it is simply more advanced (that is not to say that it's perfect, by any means). If you look at even older religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, you can see that violence in the name of those religions is even rarer. I believe that the age of a religion can directly account for how violent and "primitive" (for lack of a better word - I am not calling Islam primitive and do not mean to offend anymore) it may seem today.

Anyway. About the topic. I don't think that it's just to restrict speech of any kind. You can't imprison someone for words, and we don't want to go back to a world where it was acceptable to do so.

I would tend to agree with everything you just said. I think that religion, by its very nature, is devisive, and that each is intended to be just that. If I think that I am right, and you are wrong, and believe strongly that my "right" is the will of some god, then logic says that it is my duty to impress upon you the "right thinking" that I know. If you aren't willing to be "reasonable" and agree with me, I may very well think the world would be better off without your being around, as you will convince others that your wrongful beliefs are true.

I too don't think that it is just or reasonable to restrict speech of any kind. Restriction of actions (violence, or incitement to do violence) if needed is all that is required, IMO. I have seen already the ridiculousness that has occured when "hateful" speech has been restricted, in particular when it was considered hateful to various religions, and the results have been worse than the hateful speech ever was. To a religious, any speech which disagrees with the tenets of that person's religion is hateful by definition. I don't think it will ever be possible to have agreement by all on religious tenets.

Larry, religion need not be divisive. it depends on the nature of the doctorine, and the people wielding it. Many religious beliefs have been able to co-exist in peace in the past. it is only those driven by a doctorine of dominance that prove intolorant to others (of which everybody's favorite is the abrahamic trio, of which the youngest two have shed more blood in their "family squabble" than just about anything else in the histrory of man).

Religion also happens to be the greatest social binding force in the history of man, for good or ill.

when it comes to hate laws restricting speech, it is important to distinguish between that which is merely opposing, and that which is opressing/threatening. It does society at large no good at all to allow the free expression of rancid hatred, while it is in the best interests of society to promote positive expression. Laws that protect against hate are not designed by zealots with a particular group in mind, they are designed to make the playing field equal to all (as should be). The only people that have anything to fear from hate-laws are those that would wish to espouse hatred blatently.

I try to maintain my freedoms as a human and also as a member of a free society. I think we all have the right to express our individuality verbally as long as we understand the person on the other side of the arguement has the same right. When we get into physical altercations or stalking someone then we have laws to protect everyone from that. Words can't kill. I would and have stood behind the rights of the KKK and David Duke & his group to verbally express their opinion. I don't agree with it at all but I do stand behind their right to say what they want. The religious in this country have the right to worship the way they choose. The godless have the right to not worship idols. We are so diverse in our free society that we need our right to free speech in order to be human. We also have the right to walk away, not listen or not believe it.
Hate is such a useless human emotion anyway, so why use it. Turn it into understanding and compassion and now you got something to lighten the load of life.
Just call me, the yogi of curiousity.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!

Very well put heim I must say I agree with you 100%

ah yes, the old "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!". i agree for the need of people to express themselves, but such statements are only valid for those in a position to defend themselves. Society has an obligation to protect the weakest amungst it, those that are in no postion to defend even themselves yet alone higher philosphical stances.

You may well defend a persons right to say what they wish, but left unchecked that also leaves you complicit to the crimes that result from what has been spoken. There must be a balance struck. Speak your feelings, but in a manner that does not make a victim of another. That is what hate-laws are about. If you are of such high philosophical character, would you defend a person's right to say what they feel if it cast you as a second-class citizen knowing all too well that should such an opinion become the mainstay your people may be stripped of their own freedoms? Would you sacrifice yourself and your kind for such a higher philosphical stance, and all those who would be next to be tread upon.

Like the founding fathers, I would rather have the possibility of the crimes, than the police state that would result from suppression of basic rights.....I spent a career in the military doing my best to protect the right of speech and would not like to see it taken from us! Incidentally, the quote came from Daniel Webster if memory serves me right. - Heimdall

but defence of that free speech could just as easily lead to a police state if unchecked.

the US is built on checks and balances. i do think the founding fathers intended for people to exercise civil responsibility in exchange for the right to speech.

I will go back to my simple and first arguement, the priveldge of Freedom of speech is abused by some people. Ask any mod on the internet.

In both of the countries I have lived in, there is no writen document on the right to freedom of speech. Of course there is none that says you canot think or feel any way you want to either. Yet these countries are still free and there people pleasant. I don't need to defend someones right to speak. I do how ever feel that peoples right to equal respect is very important, and I will always place that above the priveledge of freedom of Speech.

Absolutely Kismit, you respect me I will respect you.

Free speech and thought and enterprise has its good but it also has its downside , Major food distributors patent seeds now and have driven many small farmers out of buisness, Cancer research is on hold because cancer cells are being pateneted and can't be afforded to be bought out by researches, The free speech of religion has propagated so much fear and violence people will kill each other to be right, I say we need to really use care in the freedoms we stand for , I would agree with those that free speech is abused if it will hurt another i can't in good conscience stand for it. Namaste Sehri

In my opinion I would say the problem with saying that speech shouldn't be free if it will harm others is that something is always going to harm someone else. If I state that I do not like seafood it could upset a fisherman if I say that I love corn it could upset a farmer who only grows tobacco......the freedom to speak as you choose with no thought to that idea that you need to be careful what you say or you can't speak out against one thing or the other, or speak for something is just crazy....The idea that free speech becomes a problem to moderators is because we don't' have free speech on these boards if we did there would be no need for the mods in the first place.....Yes they keep things pleasant and kind but at the same time they curb the ideas that have been said to many times or an argument that is getting out of hand, they watch for foul language and dead topics.....here where I live it doesn't matter how many times something has been discussed you can bring it back up. You can run your mouth as much and as loud as you like really. You don't like the war the president the military kelloggs tobacco companies, disney, cnn, nbc doesn't matter you can say you don't like it you can say it you love it you can say it.........yes people are going to get hurt no matter what you do, but the idea that people are going to get hurt and then not have the right to speak out about it is an even worse fate......if you don't have that freedom to say anything how do you know what is not getting said?

Pardon! The government of the US is a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government . . . the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Nowhere in the Constitution is mentioned any other checks and balances. To the contrary, free speech is guaranteed in the 1st Amendment, and there is no mention there of any need for civil responsibility whatsoever. One of the positive points of freedom of speech is it gives the ability to arouse others to take (legal) action, such as political action, as there is strength in numbers. You are making up things which aren't there. You might very well like it (from a personal standpoint) if those provisions were there, but they simply are not. It is a given that one persons opinion may well insult or anger another person, whether that result is intended or not . . . that is the crux of free speech. If a person goes around inciting people to commit crimes, that is one thing. If people commit crimes because they are demented enough to think that some principle or another justifies violence, they should be tried for their crimes, and if found guilty, and punished as appropriate. I care not what any person says . . . it is not justification for violent action. It is one thing to say, for instance, "I hate (whoever)", or to say, "All should hate (whoever)", but another entirely to say, "We should kill (whatever group of people), so let's go do it." The last is incitement to commit a crime (killing people), the first two aren't. Hatred is a personal choice which can't be controlled by any authority, and it is not only useless to try, but contra-productive. Better we should know who our enemies are so that we can be wary of them, than to suppress free speech and they sneak up on us with us unaware of them.

I agree with you that free speech can be and is used to incite people to violence. When that occurs, the people who do the violence can be and are tried and punished for doing such violence. Inciting or encouraging others to commit crime(s) is also prohibited by law. The best way I know of to prevent this is to stand up to those abusing such freedom by (using our freedom of speech to convince others we can that the abusers are full of it, and what works well is poking fun at them . . . making them look like the idiots they are. If we stand clear of those feeding themselves and others on hatred, we deserve what results.

I am all for free speech.
Just point me to the nearest movie theatre so I can go in and yell FIRE!

larry, i have no desire to make things up.

what you just put forth though is exactly the argument used FOR anti-hate speech laws (here in canada).

the problem with the US now is it is no longer a country of civilians (with civil responsibilities) but a country of consumers (only with interest in themselves).

But you just did make things up . . . your premise that freedom of speech was intended to be governed by civil responsibility by those who wrote our Constitution is entirely made up. Do you not know that the Declaration of Independence was considered a breach in civil responsibility by the acknowledged lawful (then) ruler of the US, King George III? The founders of the US didn't quivel over the fact that King George was lawful ruler, or that their actions would be considered treasonous by the Crown. By any measure, they clearly believed that only a severance of that kingship would be the answer (after diplomatic efforts failed). "Civil responsibilities" clearly take a back seat to urging action which is felt to be the best for all. Any politician anywhere would always think that people who oppose vocally what that politician wants are not acting with "civil responsibility". Freedom of speech, without regard to some person's opinion of what is responsible , civil or not, is necessary for all freedoms to be maintained. Whatever is said will always be considered to be insulting or hurtful to others, and the concept of "civil responsibility" will always be considered by politicians to be what promotes the status quo. Are you not aware that the civil rights movement was condemned by many politicians, particularly in the south to be irresponsible from a "civil" perspective? Why do you think that it was called "civil disobediance" by those who called for more rights by minorities? Because those who protested were not considered to be acting in a civil responsible manner by those in authority, is why. Do you really think that all people should have exercised civil responsibility and allowed what was law at the time to stand, and not act in defiance to those laws they considered to be unjust? Of course, in Canada, you have no rights guaranteed to you at all, and are subject to the whims of your legislative branch as the political winds blow. Fortunately for both of us, it is not that way in the US.

yes, larry, the breach of one responsibility to create another!


http://www.learningtogive.org/papers/index.asp?bpid=11

do not worry about the freedoms of canadians, for they are very well taken care of.

Larry , Free speech as currently mandated is in favor of things that cause more harm then good not all but alot, I live in a neighborhood in my city alone we have 600 sex offenders they have the right to keep it quiet I am a responsible woman and i want to know where they are to protect not only my child but them from themselves as a neighborhood we went door to door and informed parents no riots were waged we just wanted to know who and where for our children, I don't think anyones saying you can't be free to speak out but to be responsible by maybe mandating laws that focus on the content , My son's first grade teacher mandated her right to free speech and verbally abused children when I as a parent didn't agree with that treatment my free speech was called a liar, Larry why is that okay in the first place what purpose does it serve to verbally assault six year old children??? Thats what I question ???

Sheri of course they have the right to keep quiet about being a sex offender just like you have the right to find out and knock on doors to let other know about it. Your teacher has the right to say as shy chooses and you as a parent have the right to speak up and tell her that she is wrong in what she is saying and make an issue with whom ever you feel it necessary to try and protect other children from her. You can't have it both ways.....would you rather not have the right to speak up? would you rather not have the right to question the teacher? what is the lessor of two evils here? the basic point here is no matter how much you as an individual don't like what some other person of group says one you don't have to listen or follow what they say and two you have the right to speak against them......do you not like that right?

Sheri, there will never be a time when laws will prevent all people from committing crimes. Further, by nature of her employment, your son's teacher did not have freedom of speech in the classroom, and should not have been allowed by the school system to do what she did. I would only suggest that when that sort of thing happens, if you are called a liar, and you know you are indeed truthful, and you can't prevail, you should find another school which doesn't allow that sort of thing. It is difficult, I know, but it is possible, sometimes to the point of home schooling (which isn't easy, at best, to do properly). Fortunately, here in AZ we have any number of charter schools, all over the place, and it is a piece of cake to transfer a child from one to another of them. There is obviously no purpose in verbally assaulting any child in any classroom. I once banded together with others and protested at a school board meeting that school district's terrible treatment of a teacher who was in fact a great teacher. He had an altercation with a student whose mother was the president of the local PTA, a formidable opponent with much political pull. He got tired of seeing this particular mis-raised child beating on other children with rocks and bricks and the like, and called the juvenile authorities, who took the kid into custody. The school administration was going to punish him for treating the child of the PTA president this way. (The same behavior was rather common by this child, and was always just ingored, because of the prominance of his mother.) When some 250 of us who either had or had previously had children in his class showed up at the school board meeting, and told the board that we would do all we could to see that different board members would be elected in the future if they continued on their path regarding this situation, they saw the light. That was an exercise of our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in action! Unfortunately, without the power of numbers, there is little any individual can do where politics are involved . . . and school admoinistrations are ridden with internal politics.

Bacca I don't think anyone should have the right to sexually offend a child , or for a teacher to have the right to verbaly abuse a child , I and 4 other parents removed our children from the neighborhood that I pay taxes for and because of her right we were made to find other solutions (I was called a liar and told to bad) if I I'm saying Why does the sex offender only have the rifgt to keep his crime quiet, I didnot have the right to go door to door the mailcarrier that informed us would of lost her job for excersising her freedom of speech I could of got sued for planning the whole thing if it got out of hand, Bacca ist not fair from where I stand and the times I've tried to use it I've hit abrick wall I feel its a bunch of bull it works for all the wrong things, My sister was murdered The murderer had more rights and free speech then we did we were basically turned away, I 'm sorry freind but It does more harm that good. Namaste Sheri