First Amendment

Do protesters have the constitutionally protected right to picket your fallen soldier's funeral and harass the proceedings? That is the question the Supreme Court will attempt to answer after it agreed to hear Snyder v. Phelps, a case in which the jury awarded a $5 million verdict against a Kansas pastor who has made headlines by protesting the funerals of fallen service members. Previous court rulings may suggest that the answer is yes. But a careful examination of the wording of the Constitution -- not to mention simple common sense -- suggests otherwise.

In arguing the First Amendment right of employers to choose what coverage they should be exempt from providing based on conscience, the Republicans who supported the Blunt amendment (and the three Democrats who sided with them) are guilty of short-sightedness and an absence of humility. The essence of the First Amendment is the right of all to their own interpretation of religion, not just the right to their own convictions. To maintain that order of tolerance, the First Amendment mandates that the government must not establish religion, but rather allow the practices of all people.

It was refreshing to see The Sun's position in its letter to President Obama this morning ("Thanks for the letters, Mr. Obama" May 18). President Obama, in announcing Elena Kagan as his Supreme Court choice, apparently alluding to her role in the Citizens United case, said "...powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens." This refers to a second round of oral arguments last September in the Citizens United case, which Ms. Kagan and the U.S. government ultimately lost and the First Amendment won, when it became apparent that Elena Kagan holds that banning political speech can be constitutional.

A Baltimore Circuit Court judge dismissed a legal challenge Friday filed against opponents of the $1.5 billion State Center project, allowing the court fight to continue against the midtown Baltimore redevelopment. Judge Althea M. Handy issued a decision late Friday, two days after opponents, a group of downtown property and business owners, argued they have a First Amendment right to protest the plans. The group had filed a lawsuit against the project a year ago, accusing the state of using a noncompetitive process to choose developers.

Del. Ron George, in his naive anti-Sharia diatribe ("Sharia law is a real threat to American liberties," Aug. 24), seems to overlook the obvious remedy - the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since Mr. George, surprisingly an actual member of the Maryland House of Delegates, claims to be one of those "who seek to safeguard liberty," he might want to check out the document that our founders wrote for this very purpose and be reassured that there is absolutely no way Sharia law or any other religious dogma could ever be recognized as having a legal basis in America.

The article "Md. bishops call on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage" (Nov. 10) would be comical if it weren't so sad. Seems the bishops in charge think they can lie to their congregations by stating that their First Amendment rights would be violated if same sex marriages would be recognized by Maryland. So, by allowing the state to recognize same sex marriages, others' rights would be violated? This makes no sense. No one is suggesting the Catholic church marry gay or lesbian couples.

I'm writing regarding your Saturday, May 28th front page news article titled "Harbor leafleting flap raises First Amendment questions. " As one who fiercely guards and treasures my First Amendment rights, I want to commend Bruce Friedrich and his six like-minded friends who on Sunday, May 22nd, believing they were exercising their First Amendment protected rights, handed out leaflets near the National Aquarium at the Inner Harbor. That security guards asked them to leave, and a Baltimore police officer threatened to arrest him, was astonishingly reprehensible and came perilously close to unconstitutionality.

Next Sunday marks the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These guarantees of individual rights were deemed a necessary promise in 1789 when states were debating whether to ratify the Constitution itself. Upon ratification of the Constitution, the first Congress promptly wrote 12 amendments and sent them to the states. The first two amendments, dealing with apportionment of House seats and congressional salaries, were rejected. The others were adopted on Dec. 15, 1791, 810 days after submission, and became the familiar Bill of Rights.

In arguing the First Amendment right of employers to choose what coverage they should be exempt from providing based on conscience, the Republicans who supported the Blunt amendment (and the three Democrats who sided with them) are guilty of short-sightedness and an absence of humility. The essence of the First Amendment is the right of all to their own interpretation of religion, not just the right to their own convictions. To maintain that order of tolerance, the First Amendment mandates that the government must not establish religion, but rather allow the practices of all people.

If you want to get a sense of how desperate things have become in Rupert Murdoch's empire, take a look at this editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. To cast what is happening in the UK -- and what certainly seems headed for the US -- as the work of Murdoch's commercial and ideological enemies might seem mad to reasonable journalists. But not to Murdoch and his chieftans. That is all they seem to know: attack, attack and try to destroy your opponents. Providing reliable and trustworthy information to citizens so that they can make reasoned decisions about their lives is not on this gang's daily to-do list.

A funny thing happened to the First Amendment on its way to the public forum. It was hijacked. According to the Supreme Court, money is now speech, and corporations are now people. Yet when real people without money assemble to express their dissatisfaction with the political consequences of this, they're treated as public nuisances -- clubbed, pepper-sprayed, thrown out of public parks and evicted from public spaces. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision last year ended all limits on political spending.

The article "Md. bishops call on Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage" (Nov. 10) would be comical if it weren't so sad. Seems the bishops in charge think they can lie to their congregations by stating that their First Amendment rights would be violated if same sex marriages would be recognized by Maryland. So, by allowing the state to recognize same sex marriages, others' rights would be violated? This makes no sense. No one is suggesting the Catholic church marry gay or lesbian couples.

I sympathize with letter writer Arthur Lapenotiere ("In Westboro Baptist case, court upheld the law," Oct. 10), who wrote this in defense of the Supreme Court's ruling, quoting from Justice William J. Brennan, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive. " Oh, what a noble sentiment. If only it were true. Think back to another recent ruling that involved the same principle, Morse v. Frederick (and the infamous "Bong hits for Jesus" sign)

The arrest of artist Mark Chase for painting at Baltimore'sInner Harbor without a city permit for engaging in commercial activity there raises an interesting First Amendment and civil liberties issue: When is making a painting in a public place a constitutionally protected act of expression, and when is it just a shtick to make a few bucks? In Mr. Chase's case, the answer seems to be a little of both. Mr. Chase was arrested Sunday by Baltimore police after he set up his painting gear outside Harbor Place and refused to leave when told he was violating trespass laws.

Del. Ron George, in his naive anti-Sharia diatribe ("Sharia law is a real threat to American liberties," Aug. 24), seems to overlook the obvious remedy - the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since Mr. George, surprisingly an actual member of the Maryland House of Delegates, claims to be one of those "who seek to safeguard liberty," he might want to check out the document that our founders wrote for this very purpose and be reassured that there is absolutely no way Sharia law or any other religious dogma could ever be recognized as having a legal basis in America.

A Christian dominionist won the Republican straw poll in Iowa this weekend ("Bachmann wins; Perry's in," Aug. 14) Michele Bachmann believes that as an elected leader she has a divinely ordained duty to transform American government to the dictates of her Christianity, the separation clause of the First Amendment notwithstanding. Though Iowan voters don't represent America as a whole, liberals and progressives should never underestimate the right-wing predilections of the American people.

If you want to get a sense of how desperate things have become in Rupert Murdoch's empire, take a look at this editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. To cast what is happening in the UK -- and what certainly seems headed for the US -- as the work of Murdoch's commercial and ideological enemies might seem mad to reasonable journalists. But not to Murdoch and his chieftans. That is all they seem to know: attack, attack and try to destroy your opponents. Providing reliable and trustworthy information to citizens so that they can make reasoned decisions about their lives is not on this gang's daily to-do list.

To most visitors, Baltimore's Inner Harbor looks like an appealing mix of shops and waterfront attractions. But to anyone trying to exercise their rights of free speech, it can be a hostile maze governed by a patchwork of rules. If you demonstrate or distribute leaflets at the "wrong" spot, you could be ordered to leave and threatened with jail. That is what happened recently to Bruce Friedrich. He and fellow members of an animal rights group handed out leaflets one recent Sunday on a pedestrian bridge between the power plant and the National Aquarium — what looks to all the world like a public sidewalk on public property — only to be threatened with arrest by a city police officer and ordered to leave the harbor.