- This topic has 4 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
See this:California senator wants to drop Cold War communist laws
The Long Beach Democrat has introduced a bill that would scrap statutes allowing teachers and other public employees to be fired for being members of the Communist Party.The measure, scheduled to be considered Wednesday by the Senate Education Committee, also would drop a requirement that representatives of organizations seeking to use school facilities sign a form stating they do not have communist affiliations.
What do you think of this? Should these kinds of laws be scrapped or should they remain on the books?
I think the laws should be scrapped. I don't agree with the argument, made by the Consrvatives I assume, that this allows the teachers to indoctrinate, that's already happening with modern day liberalism/socialism ???This should be more of a concern:
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, introduced legislation last year that would have dropped the old anti-communist provisions from the statutes but allowed the firing of public employees who supported terrorist groups.It was rejected, 7-0 by the Education Committee after the American Civil Liberties Union and California Teachers Association argued that it violated the First Amendment.
How is supporting a terrorist group a violation of the First Amendment?
We have to defend even speech we don't like; simply put we can't judge what people say as long as it isn't inciting law breaking. [Devil's advocate here, FWIW.]
I think these anti-communist or anti-overthrow laws were designed with the idea that someone could no attempt to destroy the very thing that provided free expression in the first place. It would be like a bank issuing loaded guns to customers which were subsequently used to rob the bank. Quite frankly, though, I don't think that this reasoning jives with the modern mind that thinks there are essentially no limits to expression. All this despite Al Qaeda's purported attempts to use the freedoms within our society to help bring about our society's downfall.
We have to defend even speech we don't like; simply put we can't judge what people say as long as it isn't inciting law breaking. [Devil's advocate here, FWIW.]
True, but supporting terrorist groups is a crime, isn't it? I guess it depends on the definitions of 'supporting' and 'terrorist group'.
Don't forget guys that as citizens of the U.S. you are under oath and pledge to defend this nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic….which would mean that supporting a terrorist group now under Homeland Security and Patriot Acts is both unAmerican and illegal. 🙂
While I am the NRA and vote... I'm not sure the Patriot Act is patriotic or constitutionally legal.
Details details details...:)
not on the folks here I'm sure. 😉
Try us. 🙂If a person is for having the government check out further (beyond a standard background check) someone who wants to purchase 50 AK-47's, does that mean the person is against the freedoms granted in the 2nd or is he just concerned where those 50 AK's are going to end up?Is this a case of giving up freedom for security?
Irrelevant. The FFL forms would be filed for the 50 AK's and if the person checks out, then it is okay, and besides the transaction would be on file so it wouldn't be a secret and easily tracked if necessary.
I ws thinking more along the lines what if a non-dealer purchased 50 AK's. Would it be unreasonable if the government checked back in, say, a year, to see it that person still has those 50 AK's? Not considering if he sold 5 of them on GAA. Then there would be a record of those 5, so there should be no reason to check other than to see if the remaining 45 are still in his possession.Think gang or terrorist group leader. What if he was able to purchase for the "group" then handed them out illegally. How else could that be stopped other than to check back?See where I'm going with this?
