Judge rejects suit to remove no-fly zone over Disney on free speech grounds

Posted Friday, June 6, 2003 4:54 AM | Contributed by CRVeck

A federal judge Thursday refused to lift the no-fly zone over Walt Disney World so that an anti-homosexuality group could fly banners over the amusement park during the annual Gay Days celebration. U.S. District Judge Anne Conway said that she did not believe she had jurisdiction over FAA policies, and that the group wanting to fly the banners did not meet the burden of proof.

Read more from AP via Fox News.

Friday, June 6, 2003 7:43 AM
Well, there you have it...there *is* a God!

lata, jeremy

--bordering on blasphemy as usual

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 7:44 AM
Can I still fly my "Go Gay, you'll dress better!" banner over their church picnics?

mOOSH

------------------
Vegas -- June 7-9
ACE Con-Quest -- June 11-22

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 7:47 AM
Sounds good to me moosh! I'll fly along and drop pamphlets with fashion tips!
+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 8:44 AM
If it is of any value to anyone, I have been emailing the AFA suggesting they take up a more noble cause such as feeding hungry people and helping the homeless. I would suggest others do the same if they feel as opposed to this idealism as I do.

Buddy@afa.net

Email me if you would like to organize our efforts. - Damageinc55@yahoo.com

*** This post was edited by Patrick K 6/6/2003 12:45:24 PM ***

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 9:40 AM
The Family Policy Network should now be sued by the state for wasting the court's time.

------------------
SCREAM with me... in 2003!

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 10:08 AM
The decision to deny this suit was as much a no-brainer as the decision to dismiss the case by the fat kid suing McDonalds for making him fat. But this group achieved its real goal- publicity.
+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 10:20 AM
I email them Patrick, i told them the same thing you did, and added that Disney World is not the place, nor was it the time, to use their freedom of speech. i think patrick has something going, you all need to email them.

------------------
Veck
[url=http://bcptars.com/]Brophy Teenage Republicans
"Park in Arizona? It will happen!"

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 10:44 AM
You can all go ahead and email them...enjoy all the SPAM and religious literature you find in your inbox.

------------------
Vegas -- June 7-9
ACE Con-Quest -- June 11-22

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 11:03 AM
Yes, but all i have to do is make a rule to automatically delete it.

------------------
Veck
http://www.bcptars.com/
"Park in Arizona? It will happen!"

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 11:19 AM
Is there freedom of speech if you restrict time a place? Anyway, this issue was addressed in the wrong way. It should have been an issue of why they should be allowed to have their air space restricted when...

A) It doesn't do a damn bit of good.

B) There are thousands of other institutions that can't get away with it.

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 11:38 AM
Money, Disney World gives more money to the state of flordia than probably SFMM and DLR do combined to California.

------------------
Veck
http://www.bcptars.com/
"Park in Arizona? It will happen!"

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 12:01 PM
wahoo:

We have and have always had nummerous restrictions on freedom of speech. Really it's freedom of legitimate expression without creating public danger or subverting the legal system.

Franklin's classic example was that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theatre. It also doesn't include the freedom to lie in many circumstances. Just ask Martha Stewart and her stock broker about that one.

There are also laws relating to conspiracy and inciting to riot though the legal grounds there are trickier.

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 12:12 PM
Basically after a couple of emails, My good friend Buddy is telling me that their message has been heard. I told him his message only makes him look bad so congratulations on that. I think people like this need to be attacked in every legal sense of the word, and I am going to do my best. I am not gay, nor do I go to disney. I just hate the fact that these people who think they have some noble cause are actually dilluted, self absorbed judgemental a-holes.
+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 12:53 PM
Jim,

I am well aware of the freedom of speech constraints put in for public safety reasons. What I am saying is that flying a banner over WDW hardly violates any safety concerns no matter what message they sold to the FAA. It most certainly is the time and place to try to get that message across. A large, public gathering of homosexual people is exactly where you would try to get out the message that it is "immoral." That is where the audience is. (Not unlike the numerous banner ads that fly over Miami and Ft. Lauderdale beaches during spring break promoting wet t-shirt contests, etc. That is where the audience is.)

I am completely opposed to the anti-gay bible thumping message, I think it is ludicrous. But, I am completely in favor of their right to try to get that message out there.

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 1:55 PM
Wahoo skipper- the fact that the no-fly zone may not actually serve to protect persons from a terrorist attack is irrelevant. The government is permitted to make dumb and stupid laws. The government is only prohibited from making laws that violate the Constitution. Thus, the government is still able to restrict the time, place, and manner, of a persons speech as long as it has an independent legitimate reason for doing so (such as safety) and such regulation affects all persons equally. The fact that it is doubtful the no-fly zone will actually prevent terrorism does not really matter since it only needs to be shown that in theory such a regulation might (however weakly) help prevent terrorism.

Besides, this group got its message out. By filing their bogus claim and speaking to the news media about it, they got their message out a hundred fold. I doubt the leaders of this group lost any sleep about the outcome.

+0
Friday, June 6, 2003 9:06 PM
Jim Fisher -- you've got it right. Also on careful examination you'll find that Free Speech really is about the Govt. not supressing our right to speak up about anything we want. It is not meant to be used to force people to listen to others speech!

Personally gay or not I would probably be offended by the banners in question if they were present.

Patrick K -- I think you meant Deluded( as in crazy) not watered down as in Diluted*** This post was edited by coasterrod 6/7/2003 1:10:16 AM ***

+0
Saturday, June 7, 2003 5:24 AM
I am totally againtst being . I'm not against the people themselves. They just don't see it as wrong. I'm a Christian, but in the Bible it says that God puts the people in authority over us. And as I read at sixflagsnews.com, the Christian group said they would do it anyways. To me that is wrong. Trying to tell people about Jesus by breaking the rule that is for the people at the park's safety is not the way. I would love if they could, but instead of going against the rule, they should find another way.
+0
Saturday, June 7, 2003 1:46 PM
It's okay, Chelsea. You can type "homosexual" without fear of becoming one ;)

------------------
--Maddie--
"yes I am on the online street team"
Wha? Online. . .street. Online. . . street.

+0
Saturday, June 7, 2003 7:26 PM
Against being ......?

...A Christian pointlessly wasting church funds, you or I may have donated, to fly banners, with messages that will be ignored if even noticed by the target audience, over a theme park.

I can think of a whole lot of better uses for any monies I've given to the collection plate. Perhaps start by helping starving children in the USA or the homeless in our cities.

Better yet forget the collection plate. I think I'll start a fund to fly rainbow flag banners 24/7 over CBN and Robertson's misinformation university in Virgina Beach. I'd bet suddenly the same people would be arguing to create a new no-fly zone.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...