XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.republicans, alt.   
   olitics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.republican, alt.politics.usa.misc, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: us.politics, talk.politics.usa   
   From: linder.one@osu.edu   
      
   Sarah Austin  wrote:   
      
   >linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder)  wrote :   
   >   
   >> RichTravsky  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Sarah Austin wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Wilson Woods   wrote :   
   >>>>   
   >>>> > Preventing school principals from forcing their religious views   
   >>>> > on others is not forcing them to do anything - it's preventing   
   >>>> > them from doing something.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Free speech isnt "forcing one's views" on anyone, as long as it's   
   >>>> not done on someone else's private property when they dont want it   
   >>>> done.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> IOW you cant come preach religion in my living room, free speech   
   >>>> doesnt apply on my private property.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It SHOULD however apply on all government property and streets.   
   >>>   
   >>>Organized religious activities on government property constitutes   
   >>>endorsement and hence violates the Constitution.   
   >>   
   >> Government property or public property?  They aren't synonymous.   
   >   
   >No?   
   >   
   >A street corner is "in public" and we're supposed to have free speech.   
   >   
   >Do we not also have free speech in a government building too?   
      
   I think that would depend upon the government building.  I think its a   
   slippery subject and doesn't really apply in the broad sense being   
   discussed here.   
      
   JSL   
      
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)