0 members (),
456
guests, and
39
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 3
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 3 |
I filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Columbia U. for not letting me give a lecture/lesson on God's existence. It is now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. What follows is a link to the oral argument that took place on January 18, 2018: https://www.buzzsprout.com/admin/episodes/627197-roemer-v-columbia-u
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034 Likes: 3 |
As much as I support God, His existence, and the First Amendment, the last time I looked, Columbia was a private university, subject neither to the First Amendment itself nor application through the Fourteenth Amendment.
While I'm at it, the error of the US Supreme Court in finding the establishment clause, rather than only the free exercise clause, to be applicable to the states not only creates a bizarre exception the rules of constructing the 14th, but also did incalculable harm to society and religious freedom throughout the 20th century.
hawk, esq.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727 Likes: 23
John Member
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727 Likes: 23 |
Generally speaking, private organizations should have the freedoms to welcome or deny speech by those who come on to their property.
However, when they sign up to accept taxpayer dollars those taxpayer dollars come with the requirement that they treat different viewpoints equally.
I don't know the details of this situation, so can't really comment other than to say that if Columbia University is accepting taxpayer dollars, and has allowed other similar lectures, then they should allow this one.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034 Likes: 3
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,034 Likes: 3 |
While it's not my area of law, and it's possible that I missed a new opinion, AFAIK federal funding has never been pushed this far. It would allow the central government to get too involved the affairs of institutions.
For example, a court can delve into the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs, but not the truth thereof, or whether a doctrine is heretical to its institution.
If the federal money were highly directed rather than general, or targeted to another area, such standards *could* apply. For example, if the feds funded a lecture series, they could require neutrality or breadth in the series (and probably could not forbid it), but general student aid, or a chemistry lab, won't allow intrusion into political or religious affairs.
There *have* been programs (unconstitutional, IM!HO) broadly denying categories of funding, such as denial of all or parts of highway funds for speed limits or DUI laws, or Title IX (which has been badly abused), but these are far cry from a private right of action under the First Amendment. So far, in fact, that I would expect Rule 11 Sanctions to be more likely than success.
hawk, esq.
|
|
|
|
|