Anyone know anything more about this?

[Onlooker]

The only article I can find on this ruling is from WorldNet, which of course is notoriously right wing. I did some searches for a progressive or at least objective article on the matter, but was not successful.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54587

9th Circuit endorses censoring Christians

A ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that municipal employers have the right to censor the words "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" because that is hate speech and could scare workers.

The ruling came in a case being handled by the Pro-Family Law Center, which promised an appeal of the drastic result.

"We are going to take this case right up the steps of the United States Supreme Court," said Richard D. Ackerman, who along with Scott Lively argued the case for the Pro-Family Law Center.

[NightWatcher]

1. if you couldnt find a legit source.....then maybe it's BS or an exageration

[sandnsea]

2. Good News vs Hicks

A couple of idiots formed an "association" to post inflammatory rhetoric against gays. Lots of resources:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Good+News+Employees+Association+v.+Hicks&btnG=Google+Search

[maddezmom]

3. looks like this has been going on a long time

a few links..I think that are connected

http://forum.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=209

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Good_News_Employee_Association_v_Hicks

Good News Employee Assoc. v Hicks
Category: Law
Posted on: February 19, 2007 9:25 AM, by Ed Brayton

This is a rather interesting case that is getting a fair amount of attention in the Christian media and blogosophere where, predictably, the issue at stake is being exaggerated out of all proportion. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case, an appeal of a district court ruling granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, this past week. I'll first show how the case is being portrayed in the media and the blogosphere, then get into the actual facts of the case.

The Worldnutdaily has a report on the case and describes the issue this way:

A special session of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being held today at the Stanford University Law School where lawyers are arguing whether the words "natural family, marriage and family values" constitute "hate speech" that could intimidate city of Oakland workers.
That got picked up by our old pal Gribbit, who declares:

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is meeting at Stanford Law School today in a special session to hear arguments concerning the declaration of the words "natural family, marriage and family values" as hate speech. That's right. Some pinheads on the left coast want the words "natural family, marriage and family values" declared hate speech.
Well, not quite. As usual, the media reports focus on the broadest possible issue and not on the actual legal issue under dispute in the case. California does not have a law against "hate speech", nor does any other state. The only place such rules exist in the US are on college campuses (and as I wrote recently, I am in favor of an all out legal assault to get such rules declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). But the issue in this case is much narrower than that and has little to do with outlawing the advocacy of anti-gay positions.

The particular issue in the case is whether the Constitution requires that employees be allowed to post material in public view in their office that their employer (in this case, the city of Oakland) has deemed to be in violation of their anti-harrassment policies and disruptive to the collegiality of the workplace. The case does not attempt to declare such sentiments "hate speech", nor would it prevent the plaintiffs from expressing their position in a myriad of other ways; it deals solely with the narrow question of whether the employer can regulate the content of material posted on their public bulletin boards.

Now let's look at the undisputed facts of the case (both sides stipulated these basic facts, so they are uncontroversial). Two employees of the city of Oakland formed a group called Good News Employee Association to counter what they viewed as city policies that favored gays and lesbians more than they would like them to. They posted a flier on the bulletin board in their city office seeking to have others join their group. The ruling states the facts about the flier:

more:http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/02/good_news_employee_assoc_v_hic.php

[Onlooker]

4. Thanks

Just what I was looking for. Interesting example of seeing how the right spins things.