3 - Atlanta-area college changes policy regarding speech zones
The ability of Christian groups on college campuses to share their messages has become an issue at a number of schools over the years. And, recently at Kennesaw State University, located in the Atlanta suburbs, a group called Ratio Christi, which is a Christian apologetics group, had wanted to place a pro-life display on campus. That was OK'ed by school officials, but they limited the area in which the display could be erected.
Alliance Defending Freedom defended the campus group. Its website said the display was relegated "to a 'speech zone' that made up less than 0.08 percent of the 405-acre campus." ADF states that:
Previously, no guidelines existed for KSU officials to follow, which gave them unrestricted discretion to grant, deny, or modify a student organization’s reservation request even for unconstitutional reasons. Thus, officials relegated any activities they deemed “controversial” to the small, less-accessible speech zone.The university reached a settlement with the group, which provides that, according to the website, "the school will eliminate its speech zone, students will be free to speak freely in all outdoor areas of campus, and the university will pay $20,100 to ADF and Ratio Christi, the student organization that sponsored the pro-life display, to cover legal expenses incurred in defense of the group’s constitutionally protected freedoms. The site states that, "The settlement eliminates the speech zone, allowing students to speak freely in all outdoor areas of campus, and when they seek to reserve space, they can’t be relegated to disfavored areas."
ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham is quoted as saying, “Kennesaw State has done the right thing in ending the ability of officials to quarantine any student speech they deemed ‘controversial’ to a tiny, difficult-to-access part of campus. We hope that this settlement will prompt other public universities to eliminate similar unconstitutional policies..."
2 - Alabama Supreme Court upholds death sentence in case where unborn child died
In a recent court case involving the death penalty, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that a convicted murderer, Jessie Phillips, should receive that penalty not only for the death of his wife, but also for their unborn child. Liberty Counsel provided news and commentary on the case. It states:
Phillips had argued that he should not get the death penalty for killing his unborn child because he said the child was not a “person” under Alabama law. The Court rejected Phillips’ arguments and held that, under Alabama law, Baby Doe was a full “person” and that “the value of the life of an unborn child is no less than the value of the lives of other persons.”The ruling from the state's high court was unanimous. As Life Site News points out:
The Alabama legislature expressly enacted the “Brody Act” 12 years ago to protect pre-born babies. Under the Brody Act, the definition of a “person” includes “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.” The Brody Act is consistent with numerous other sections of Alabama law which recognize the equal status of the child in the womb.The article also states that:
The national significance of this case cannot be understated, since the question of personhood has been the lynchpin to the so-called right to abortion, ever since Justice Blackmun erroneously wrote in Roe v. Wade that children in the womb are not persons and therefore not entitled to any of the fundamental constitutional protections.
Responding directly to Roe’s flawed ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.”That article, as well as the Liberty Counsel release, points out that Justice Tom Parker wrote an additional opinion. Liberty Counsel states that:
Justice Parker wrote separately to emphasize how broadly and consistently the law and judicial decisions in Alabama and around the country protect the rights of unborn children. This, Justice Parker said, contrasts with “the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade.”1 - Former Atlanta Fire Chief receives significant payout in aftermath of termination
You're probably familiar with the plight of Kelvin Cochran, the former Fire Chief of Atlanta who was terminated as the result of a book that he wrote, outlining Christian principles regarding masculinity. In the ensuing days, Cochran was fired by then-Mayor Kasim Reed. WORLD Magazine reports:
Reed, in a letter, had defended the firing, saying Cochran didn’t have permission to write the book, which “required prior approval from the Board of Ethics,” and had compromised his ability to lead city employees who might be homosexual. But an investigation found no evidence that Cochran discriminated against any member of the fire department because of his religious beliefs.WORLD references a WSB Radio report that the Atlanta City Council voted 11-3 to pay Cochran $1.2 million. The article says:
Cochran won a lawsuit against the city and Mayor Kasim Reed late last year. A U.S. District Court ruled that Atlanta’s policies restricting speech outside of work allowed city officials to unconstitutionally discriminate against views with which they disagreed.Alliance Defending Freedom pointed out:
With regard to the city’s “pre-clearance” rules, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia wrote in its December 2017 decision in Cochran v. City of Atlanta, “This policy would prevent an employee from writing and selling a book on golf or badminton on his own time and, without prior approval, would subject him to firing. It is unclear to the Court how such an outside employment would ever affect the City’s ability to function, and the City provides no evidence to justify it…. The potential for stifled speech far outweighs any unsupported assertion of harm.”
No comments:
Post a Comment