|
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
Minow take: It's hard to even start a comment on this one - it's so over the top (if it is an April fools, then let me know). The government cannot prohibit speech on the basis of viewpoint, even in a nonpublic forum. I believe that lawmakers should read the constitution before introducing bills, but sadly, it's not unusual that they don't, or they don't care. They want to tell their constituents: "See, I got the law passed, it's not my fault that the courts struck it down."
Regarding the sentence: "The government cannot prohibit speech on the basis of viewpoint, even in a nonpublic forum."
Some clarification: while the government cannot prohibit free speech (theoretically), a government entity can prohibit a government employee's speech on the basis of viewpoint, even in a nonpublic forum. The same applies to private sector employees. Many people assume that free speech is a universal right, at least in the USA. It's not.
Your thoughts on this appreciated.
Posted by: Russell | September 14, 2006 at 10:04 AM