Attorney: Eventually just our words will be considered dangerous

Thursday, April 2, 2015
 | 
Bob Kellogg (OneNewsNow.com)

An organization fighting for individual rights says the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case involving students' right to wear American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo is an ominous sign.

On Cinco de Mayo in 2010, three Oak Hill High School students in California were told by school officials they couldn't wear patriotic T-shirts because Hispanic students might be offended. John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute says the justices didn't even give a reason for their refusal to hear the case.

In Whitehead's opinion, today's Supreme Court isn't a civil libertarian court – which he views as indicative of a dangerous trend.

Whitehead, John (Rutherford Institute)"As I'm looking at the court decisions across the country in the lower courts and the Supreme Court, pretty soon anything that might offend somebody – and you can put quotes around that word 'might' – is going to be taboo," he laments. "So free speech, as we've known it, I think is almost dead if this court continues the way it's going."

The attorney says this Supreme Court is the most statist court that he's seen in the 40 years that he has practiced law.

"They uphold any action by public schools [and] basically any action by the government," Whitehead opines. "So ... if you want civil liberties protections. you better get in the courts, you better fight – and the next time some of these judges come up for the Supreme Court, let's get a judge on there who understands the Constitution."

Rutherford filed the First Amendment lawsuit against the school district on behalf of the students and their parents (Dariano v. Morgan Hill).

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

I agree with this HHS proposal reversing the Obamacare section benefiting transgenders primarily because …

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Tornadoes rake 2 Oklahoma cities, killing 2 and injuring 29
Israeli president shocked by German kippa warning
Iraq offers to mediate in crisis between its allies Iran, US
Venezuela negotiators return to Norway for crisis talks
Mike Pence: West Point grads should expect to see combat
Flooding leads to Oklahoma and Arkansas evacuations
New candidates vie to succeed UK’s May with focus on Brexit
Bolton says N. Korea missile tests violated UN resolutions

LATEST FROM THE WEB

Gillette is at it again: This time featuring Samson, a transgender man shaving for the first time
French police hunt man who planted explosive device in Lyon, release surveillance photos
Tornado strikes El Reno, Oklahoma; at least 2 deaths confirmed: reports
Thousands march in Hong Kong to commemorate June 4 protests
Israelis protest moves to grant Netanyahu immunity, limit Supreme Court

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
In plain view: Spite, hypocrisy in 'gay marriage' push

The opponents of religious freedom aren't stopping at trying to redefine marriage. In the words of one attorney, recent events indicate they also want to "ruin every aspect" of the lives of those who stand for natural marriage.