![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Ron Hill on April 27, 2002, at 21:44:47
Dr. Bob;I'm not usually one to cause waves, but I think we have a legal problem. As I understand the law, it is illegal to discriminate against public speech solely because that speech happens to be religious in nature. This is especially true, in this particular case, since this web site is at least partially under the umbrella of the University of Chicago and, therefore, receives federal funds, either directly or indirectly.
The law does not allow for censorship of religious speech merely because some, or even most, of the public forum participants vote to discriminate against said type of speech. IMHO, reference to TSA's constitutionally guaranteed religious speech as "promotional" would not be upheld in a court of law since TSA is not selling anything, nor is TSA attempting to gain a profit from said free speech.
If I have time this coming week, I will contact the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and see if they can free up one of their attorneys to look into this matter. If they have time to take the case, their aim will be to find resolution to this issue in a very constructive positive manner. Would it be best for the ACLJ attorneys to contact you personally or would it be best for them to contact the legal department at the University of Chicago?
On the other hand, I may be completely wrong regarding this free speech issue. Perhaps constitutionally guaranteed speech can be revoked on a web site such as this, but I doubt it. If the public forum participants are allowed the opportunity to express opinions, which are clearly the case on PB, then federal law prohibits discrimination against speech solely because it is religious in nature. Religious speech cannot be treated as pornography.
At the same time, I understand the frustration of those on the other side of this issue. The bottom line is that I believe we need to rethink how this issue can be handled on this site.
-- Ron
Posted by kiddo on April 28, 2002, at 1:02:22
In reply to Attn Dr. Bob: A Legal Issue, posted by Ron Hill on April 27, 2002, at 21:44:47
It sounds to me as if he's promoting The Salvation Army...JMHO
Kiddo
Posted by Shar on April 28, 2002, at 2:39:14
In reply to Re: Attn Dr. Bob: A Legal Issue, posted by kiddo on April 28, 2002, at 1:02:22
I believe that Dr. Bob has asked people talking about religion not to pressure people, and, like the civility issue, that is his call.
I think for your own peace of mind, Ron, you should contact whomever you want about the TSA and religion as it relates to this board.
But, if one reads the Bible (if Christianity is the religion to which you are referring), I believe Jesus also asked his followers not to pressure people (the 'actions speak louder than words' idea). If memory serves, he (jesus) even suggested that people should be particularly careful with (hide, even) their worshiping, and nobody ought to be able to tell that someone follows jesus, god, etc. except through their actions (not via external pronouncements or preaching).
Shar
Posted by beardedlady on April 28, 2002, at 7:20:16
In reply to Attn Dr. Bob: A Legal Issue, posted by Ron Hill on April 27, 2002, at 21:44:47
Ron:
Freedom of speech is not at issue here. The Internet is one of those places that has its own constitution. You can use inciteful speech on the internet, and it's not punishable by law. And you can place restrictions on speech, as well, without penalty.
AOL, an enormous on-line company (an understatement, of course) has its own civility rules--strict ones, and they cannot be challenged in the supreme court. (Even e-mails are not excempt; if you have an account with AOL, you mustn't--I believe--use offensive language. Your account will be terminated.)
In my school--a university, I have a contract with my students. They must abide by the rules of my classroom, whether I work for the University of Bumwad or any other place that receives government funds. My students do not have freedom of speech, and, frankly, neither do I.
This web site has rules. You want to post here? Follow them.
This is not a constitutional law issue.
You know I love you, Ron. But I do hope you will understand the difference. And if you pursue it, I am almost certain a lawyer would tell you the same. I hope you don't, though. Because right about now, if I were Bob, I'd shut the whole project down.
beardy : >
Posted by beardedlady on April 28, 2002, at 8:40:24
In reply to Re: Attn Dr. Bob: A Legal Issue, posted by kiddo on April 28, 2002, at 1:02:22
Indeed, the posts in question do sound like promotion of the Salvation Army.
I believe I've quoted some Ani Difranco lyrics a bunch of times, and others have used Dylan. Can someone tell me why this would not be promotional material? (My goal, of course, is that others will see what a genius she is and buy her records!) I'm curious about the difference.
(I still think Dr. Bob was right to have singled out those taglines.)
beardy : )>
Posted by Fi on April 28, 2002, at 10:07:25
In reply to Attn Dr. Bob: A Legal Issue, posted by Ron Hill on April 27, 2002, at 21:44:47
Why not just find yourself one of the (many) other message boards where you can say what you like? Leave us in peace within the remit?
I can't remember properly, but I think this board is particularly well covered as we have to sign up at the beginning before posting, by the way.
Fi
Posted by Phil on April 28, 2002, at 10:47:26
In reply to Re: Attn Dr. Bob: A Legal Issue » Ron Hill, posted by Fi on April 28, 2002, at 10:07:25
is that we could all put little tag lines.
If someone said support the humane society on every post; even tho I agree, I'd get sick of seeing it."When visiting Austin, be sure to check out Harriet's massage parlor and shuffleboard palace."
We've been an Austin tradition for over 3 months.
Posted by mist on April 28, 2002, at 12:37:27
In reply to Rules v. Laws » Ron Hill, posted by beardedlady on April 28, 2002, at 7:20:16
> AOL, an enormous on-line company (an understatement, of course) has its own civility rules--strict ones, and they cannot be challenged in the supreme court.
I'm not taking sides on this issue, haven't read the posts in question, but just wanted to point out that AOL is a private company so the first amendment wouldn't apply anyway. It only applies to speech restricted by government or government-funded entities.
> In my school--a university, I have a contract with my students.
> This is not a constitutional law issue.My understanding is that if an institution receives federal funding participants in its activities are entitled to first amendment protections. Even if you have a contract, someone could challenge it and it may not hold up in court based on constitutionality issues. There may be exceptions. I'm not an attorney but I have spoken with one about a related situation in real life that I observed, concerning a private nonprofit organization that received federal funding. The attorney confirmed my understanding that there were first amendment issues involved. Since this is a university research project I imagine the same laws would apply even though it's online (if the university receives government funding).
Again, I don't have an opinion about the specific situation that gave rise to this issue or who's right and who's wrong. I just wanted to provide some information based on what I've learned looking into something similar in the past. I think it's good to be aware of potential issues like this no matter what.
Posted by JahL on April 29, 2002, at 0:06:58
In reply to Re: Attn Dr. Bob: A Legal Issue » Ron Hill, posted by Fi on April 28, 2002, at 10:07:25
> Why not just find yourself one of the (many) other message boards where you can say what you like? Leave us in peace within the remit?
Yeah, surely the (only) point is that PB exists for the discussion of medication and not religious issues.
Satanism is a religion. Can I start singing Lucifer's praises now on PB? Will someone protect my 'right' to do so? (rhetorical q's). I believe I voluntarily signed away such rights when I registered.
This has been covered before and I think we all agreed then that religious posturing was inappropriate on PB.
I'm personally more concerned about the 'highly specialised research' being offered. Specialised how? Does god lend a hand?
J.
PS-lawyers run the world as it is; we don't need them running this site.
Posted by Zo on April 29, 2002, at 17:40:31
In reply to Re:Sorry but what's worse, posted by Phil on April 28, 2002, at 10:47:26
Yes! (picking self up after ROFLing) Please do!
(Are you married? I think I love you.)Only this scans better: Harriet's Shuffleboard Palace and Massage Parlor."
We aim to please,
Zo
Posted by wendy b. on April 29, 2002, at 23:34:08
In reply to Re: Yessss! » Phil, posted by Zo on April 29, 2002, at 17:40:31
Zo, I proposed to Phil a while back, and he's THE man. Hmmm - a battle over the guy in the thong... I know I would get along with the llama... that's the test: "Can she put up with the llama?" If yes, she's in...jokingly? |:---]]
W.
> (Are you married? I think I love you.)
>
> Only this scans better: Harriet's Shuffleboard Palace and Massage Parlor."
Posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 1:12:33
In reply to Re: Zo, I already asked him twice, he's mine!, posted by wendy b. on April 29, 2002, at 23:34:08
Posted by wendy b. on April 30, 2002, at 6:49:05
In reply to Re: I have to take the llama, or no Phil?? (nm) » wendy b., posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 1:12:33
Posted by kiddo on April 30, 2002, at 7:44:10
In reply to Re: I have to take the llama, or no Phil?? (nm) » wendy b., posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 1:12:33
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2002, at 10:28:41
In reply to Llama's spit at you if they don't like you :D (nm), posted by kiddo on April 30, 2002, at 7:44:10
Posted by Ron Hill on April 30, 2002, at 12:57:16
In reply to Re: let's keep it administrative here (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2002, at 10:28:41
Dr. Bob,I spoke with staff at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) earlier today. After listening to my explanation of the situation, they asked me to FAX documentation of the events. I hope to get the documents together and FAXed either today or tomorrow. Therefore, it will likely be next week before I get an answer back from the ACLJ. Just wanted to keep you informed regarding the timeline.
With Highest Regards,
Ron Hill
Posted by beardedlady on April 30, 2002, at 14:03:09
In reply to Legal Issue Update » Dr. Bob, posted by Ron Hill on April 30, 2002, at 12:57:16
Did Dr. Bob ask you to look into this matter for him? I'm just curious because it seems to me like you're doing this because you objected to Dr. Bob's note to TSA West (sp?) about slogans. And if the latter is the case, and if it's something that could make trouble for Dr. Bob, why are you keeping him abreast of your progress?
I really don't understand the problem here. We all agree to the same rules when posting. If TSA West didn't like those rules, he was free to choose another internet bulletin board.
Finally, if he is not pursuing it, why are you?
beardy
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.