If you can't mention the 2nd Amendment do we actually have a 1st Amendment?

Apparently we’re not only at risk of losing our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but it appears that, at least in some cases, we’ve lost the right to free speech.

How soon will this be applied to religion?:shrug:

FOX News reports the incident this way:

Professor Takes Heat for Calling Cops on Student Who Discussed Guns in Class
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
By Maxim Lott LINK TO REST OF THE STORY >>> foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504524,00.html

A professor in Connecticut reported one of her students to the police after he gave a class presentation on why students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Now, free speech activists say the professor’s actions are what really need to be investigated.

Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.

That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. . .

The school newspaper wrote this editorial:

Professors need to respect First Amendment rights
Our Opinion

LINK TO REST OF THE STORY >>> media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2009/03/04/Commentary/Professors.Need.To.Respect.First.Amendment.Rights-3658833.shtml

Although the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal,” apparently the same does not apply to Constitutional amendments, as shown by events just down the road from Storrs. Recently, at Central Connecticut State University, a student was brought into the police station after he gave a class presentation about carrying concealed handguns on campus. What was his transgression? He dared to talk about guns in class, which made his classmates feel “scared and uncomfortable” according to his professor.

John Wahlberg was in Paula Anderson’s introductory public speaking class when the students received an assignment to make a presentation about a “relevant issue in the media.” Given the fierce debate about whether or not students and professors should be allowed to carry weapons on campus - ignited by the fatal shootings at Virginia Tech - Wahlberg thought that concealed carry was an appropriate topic for class. It is important to note that while Wahlberg is a gun owner and a Second Amendment advocate, he never threatened to harm anyone during his presentation. . .

World Net Daily reported this:

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Prof calls cops when student mentions guns in speech
’If you can’t talk about the 2nd Amendment, what happened to the 1st Amendment?'
Posted: March 04, 2009
LINK TO WHOLE STORY >>> wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90740

. . . The student was fulfilling an assignment for his Communications 140 class that required him to discuss a “relevant issue in the media” when he and two other students on a team chose to talk about school violence, including recent events such as the 2007 shootings that left nearly three dozen people dead at Virginia Tech University
. . .
Apparently his professor, Paula Anderson, had filed a campus police department complaint about his speech. Police officers reported she said students were “scared and uncomfortable” during his presention.
. . .
Anderson, in a written comment, said, "It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times. As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the chair

Typical liberal professor do what I say not what I do. They always talk about free speech as long as your speech is agreeable to them. Once you cross that line and say something they don’t agree with they will try to shut down your freedom of speech.

One prime example is Dr. Laura she had a TV show and the homosexual lobby got her taken off the air because she dared say that homosexually is a disorder that was taken off the physiological disorder list because the homosexual lobby paid off the APA. to get it taken off the list.

Also like now with the so-called fairness doctrine it’s only aimed at talk radio because that’s one thing the liberal bias media doesn’t control it.

Well I assume Dr. Laura’s show was aired on a private TV station - private TV stations can take down whatever they want if enough people find it offensive. Especially because the APA paying off psychiatrists seems likely untrue. If you make offensive, somewhat unfounded statements, and enough people get mad, you have a right to be fired. See Don Imus. But it’s still free speech as long as you are not arrested. How many people on this site boycott sponsors of ‘immoral’ shows?

As for the Fairness Doctrine, I believe that was originally put into place in the 70s or 80s, at a time when the internet did not exist and TV channels were very few and therefore mostly moderate to appeal to everyone. It’s no that they wrote this policy to target radio, it’s just that that’s how it was coincidentally written. I oppose it, BTW.

No the homosexual lobby paid off the APA not the APA paid off the shrinks. They lobbied against her TV show before it even aired. They want to shut down other peoples freedom of speech that in not in line with theirs instead of having a debate about it.

She did not make unfounded statements she only said what the Catholic Church teaches but since you’re not a Catholic or a believer of our Lord Jesus this will be hard for you to understand.

The so-called fairness doctrine is being reintroduced and is only aimed at talk radio that should speak volumes to people.

As for Imus he went after those college girls and was just wrong. What’s funny is he’s a big liberal and his liberal buddies threw him under the bus he had it coming. I had a good laugh about it.

It isn’t shutting down freedom of speech to employ your own; free speech includes the right of others to exercise their right to respond, and their right to peaceably assemble in protest. She was not shut down by the government.

She did not make unfounded statements she only said what the Catholic Church teaches but since you’re not a Catholic or a believer of our Lord Jesus this will be hard for you to understand.

That’s not true. There’s a difference between the Catechism’s use of “inherently disordered” and Laura Ingraham’s claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder. There are a lot of things, according to the Catechism, that are inherently disordered, but are not mental disorders. All inclinations we have to sin are inherently disordered, but not all of them are mental disorders. That’s a matter for the psychiatrists.

The so-called fairness doctrine is being reintroduced and is only aimed at talk radio that should speak volumes to people.

Legally, it can’t be directed at television shows. It can only be introduced to the radio waves because while television channels do not have a theoretical upper limit, radio frequencies do. The Supreme Court has ruled that since there is a limited number of radio frequencies available, the government can regulate them more strictly than television networks.

Honestly, the Fairness Doctrine won’t really change anything; when we had it before, radio stations often ran two-minute blurbs in response to some editorial. FOX News basically operates under a self-imposed Fairness Doctrine for appearance’s sake, but that did not prevent them from being openly conservative. Even with a Colmes to accompany a Hannity, Hannity still dominated, and the requirements of the hypothetical fairness doctrine are far, far less stringent than adding Colmes for every Hannity; even taking a liberal caller every now and allowing him to talk would satisfy the requirement. If it gets imposed, no one will even notice its there, really. Its a tempest in a teapot.

Ho hum! She was shut down by the homosexual lobby! That is shutting down freedom of speech! Why don’t they want to discuss this?

I’m talking about Dr. Laura not Laura Ingraham please get your facts straight?

As for homosexually being a disorder please check your Catechism?

I’m not going to look it up for you.

BTW: I used to be a radio frequency manager and TV frequencies are VHF-FM same as radio FM frequencies so I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about here?

Now since TV is going digital I guess that throws your point out to the wind?

So they are not allowed to protest? Is that not a violation of their freedom of speech?

I’m talking about Dr. Laura not Laura Ingraham please get your facts straight?

Brain fart on my part. I typed Ingraham when I meant Dr. Laura.

As for homosexually being a disorder please check your Catechism?

Do you not recognize a distinction between the phrase “inherently disordered” as used in the Catechism, and an actual mental disorder?

I’m not going to look it up for you.

I know what it says in the Catechism, but the Catechism does not say that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

BTW: I used to be a radio frequency manager and TV frequencies are VHF-FM same as radio FM frequencies so I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about here?

Now since TV is going digital I guess that throws your point out to the wind?

No, actually, TV going digital is what makes the point. Because digital cable does not have that same theoretical upper limit, the FCC does not have the same ability to regulate it as radio does. At one time, the FCC could have regulated television stations in the same way, but most legal opinions I have seen say that this is no longer the case.

You’re the only one saying mental disorder? Not me!

Ok when it comes to frequencies on cable it’s inside the cable and does not transmit over the airwaves like terrestrial frequencies do. Digital opens up a lot more bandwidth.

I was on the fielding team when the U.S. Army went digital in the late 1980’s in fact my soldiers were the first to use digital communication in Saudi Arabia by a tactical army unit in 1990.

What I’m saying is digital is new for a lot of civilians but not for the military.

Sorry, I meant the homosexual lobby, not the APA :o

The gays have every right to protest against what they feel is hateful speech. If Jews protested against someone expressing anti-Nazi beliefs before the show even aired, would you tell them to have a debate? If someone said blacks were intrinsically inferior in the same way Dr. Laura said gays are intrinsically disordered, would you tell them to debate it? (I believe all these should be allowed to be debated publicly - but on a private channel people can air what they want)

By unfounded accusations, I meant saying the homosexual lobby paid off the APA, which doesn’t sound verified. I totally support her saying what she believes and what the Church teaches - I just also support the right of gays to protest just as hard for what they believe. And if it results in her getting canceled, that’s life. Just as if people like Dr. Laura lobby to get a show regularly depicting homosexual sex banned from TV, it’s life. It’s a different issue if gays tried to get her speech made illegal, or if Dr. Laura tries to get ‘the homosexual agenda’ banned.

I’m aware the Fairness Doctrine is being brought up again, but I’m saying the fact that it’s targeted at Talk Radio is not the Democrats doing, it’s how it naturally is. (Their motivations for bringing it up though do border on censorship even though it’s not telling people what not to say it’s telling people what they have to say as well). I am against the Fairness Doctrine.

So how about we return to the OP. Lujack and Siamese, would you argue that this is not intimidation in an effort to stifle the first amendment?

Central Connecticut State University needs to issue a press release about this incident. I searched its website for one, but it couldn’t be found. And neither Google News, nor PRNewswire shows such press release.

From what has been reported so far, the professor is clearly in the wrong. The only possible justification for her action would have been if the student implied in his speech that he was carrying a concealed weapon, when the university forbids any weapons on campus.

Wait…Dr. Laura said that homosexuality was a mental disorder, and you said that all she did was agree with the catechism. I tried to refute that by saying that this isn’t actually what the Catechism says.

Ok when it comes to frequencies on cable it’s inside the cable and does not transmit over the airwaves like terrestrial frequencies do. Digital opens up a lot more bandwidth.

Right, so when the switch to digital comes, the legal grounds for the Fairness Doctrine there become very doubtful. With regards to radio, though, the legal grounds are not in doubt.

I was on the fielding team when the U.S. Army went digital in the late 1980’s in fact my soldiers were the first to use digital communication in Saudi Arabia by a tactical army unit in 1990.

What I’m saying is digital is new for a lot of civilians but not for the military.

That’s well and good, but the fairness doctrine would never have applied to military communications to begin with, so whether the military had it first or not is irrelevant to this issue.

People is this thread about free speech and gun phobias or about Homosexuality? :confused::confused:

Please stick to you guns! :D:D:D

It’s intimidation to stifle objectionable speech - but not the first amendment. Trying to stifle the first amendment means that the gays would be suggesting Dr. Laura’s speech be made ILLEGAL. The first amendment guarantees you can’t face criminal repercussions for your speech - it doesn’t say you can say whatever you want without consequences. That’s why you can sue for defamation, why we have the FCC to stop swearing and vulgar language on TV, or why you can get fired for making comments people find objeciontable that embarrasses the company you represent. I am a strong believer in free speech - people should be able to say what they want, I don’t even think defamation should be punishable, or that the FCC should exist. But I believe the market regulating itself - if people air content that a large amount of people find offensive, they intimidate and boycott and protest and the content is removed.

Sorry, I thought the second post was actually the OP.

The problem with the ‘market regulating itself’ when we are talking about constitutional rights is that the rights are often chipped away at, little bits at a time, in tiny increments so that it seemingly is not even noticed. At some point it simply becomes politically/socially acceptable to act/talk/react a certain way to certain things because a group feels that is the correct way.

In the case of these students (apparently this was a group presentation, but only 1 student was singled out) the teacher’s “feelings” made it acceptable to stifle the student’s free speech because the TOPIC was deemed to be “scary” or otherwise inappropriate by the teacher. The topic was simply fighting back against violence with force. But what if the a student wears a Christian message on their T-Shirt and the school determines that is sending the wrong message?

Some things can be fought in court but many people have neither the time nor the resources to fight the good fight. Most simply cave in. Little by little the positive message of Christians has been diluted. The public schools are partly to blame, the media, etc.

I think there is a great danger here in allowing teachers/politicians/media/etc to frame what is acceptable to talk about.

In reference to the OP, which I have now read, I’ve realized that it does seem his rights were violated. Although, the story could be biased. If he simply created a factual presentation, I don’t see how he could face any repercussions. Perhaps he did make some sinister comments which is why people felt uncomfortable. It seems odd if it was just a general presentation, he’d face action. I don’t support him facing legal or disciplinary action for that.

But when someone is actually making offensive comments (and by offensive i mean offensive to anyone really), no company should HAVE to keep them on. They should be by all means allowed to publish what the publish, say what they say, believe what they believe, but no publishing company should be forced to associate itself.

If it’s not ok to protest against anti-gay remarks, then it’s not ok to protest against racism, rape, abortion, whatever. People have a right to protest something they find despicable, and it’s up to the person airing the content whether or not to continue in spite of the protests. A school is a private instituion with its own rules, but I don’t really see how could they could expel him if he simply did a project on this. It’s possible it was more than this and he made comments such as “I regularly conceal a gun in class just in case” - because this is against policy. But I have no proof of that, and if it’s as ridiculous as it seems, I believe it is wrong to ban this.

ETA: It was probably a liability issue. If this guy expressed interested in guns on campus and then became a campus shooter, people would be really enraged no on had reportedh is past behavior.

All I did was give an example of people shutting down free speech! I stand by my posts!

Air America failed because the majority of Americans do not want to hear American bashing 24hrs a day and that’s what Air America did; so it failed with the market they couldn’t get sponsors. This I don’t have a problem with.

Liberals in congress that are reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine today is going after conservative terrestrial talk radio and that’s a fact. Just check out which party the people belong to that support it.

If Air American would have been a success then they wouldn’t do this.

If people can’t see that then their heads are buried in the sand or they’re listening to CNN and MSNBC too much.

These people in congress are doing the same thing that liberal professor did.

I’ve looked over about a half dozen different reports about this event and NOT ONE of them mentioned anything about anything sinister, intimidating, or anything else along those lines. Most indicated that it was a group presentation and that it was a presentation based on currently topical issues and simply indicated that it discussed firearms on campuses. Not one of the articles even indicated that there was a pro-2nd Amendment bias, but rather they suggested it was topical.

Oh HEAVEN help the members of the campus drill team or the campus rifle club. Heck if your talking about ‘weapons’ then the whole fencing team must be rounded up too. They walk around with SWORDS on campus but nobody is stopping them >> OH THE HORROR OF IT ALL :eek: :eek: :eek: they could slice and dice a kitten with their glorified GINSU knives <<

I’m sorry but I simply don’t buy into the “liability issue” at all. To me that is a crock of politically correct B.S. The teacher clearly is trying to bully the student into silence. I see this same tactic*** (minus the police involvement) ***with public schools bullying Christians into silence. Oh, and I don’t blame the police in this matter, they MUST follow up on complaints, they were mere pawns used by the teacher.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.