O’Reilly vs Kelly on First Amendment Matters
It’s always great watching when Bill O’Reilly tries to argue with colleague Megyn Kelly on first amendment matters. He never seems to get it right. They’re debating about how the Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire last Friday stopped all requests for religious displays at the state capitol after an controversial display by an atheist group was put up.
O’Reilly’s argument seems to be arguing that the atheist sign is inappropriate because it “interrupts the decorum,” while Kelly is arguing that you cannot have viewpoint discrimination. Kelly is right, of course. Your policy on such displays cannot cherry pick. This has been decided by the court time and again, such as in Lynch v. Donnelly (though Allegheny v. ACLU made things a bit murky). She cannot ban the atheist display but allow a Christian display or allow a request by the Westboro Baptist Church and deny the Flying Spagetti Monster display (both appear to have been legitimate requests).
(Continued)
If I have one question it is whether Gregoire legally has to remove all displays, because she is now essentially nitpicking by allowing Christianity, Judaism and atheism and barring all the rest. I’m guessing she doesn’t have to do anything, but I could be wrong.
The problem with O’Reilly’s “decorum” statement is that I believe (but again, could be wrong) that Gregoire could have gotten into a bucket of steam if she had told them to go mold their message to take out that last line ridiculing believers. It’d be like saying to the Christians, “okay, Christmas displays are fine, but Christmas trees only, no nativity scenes.” I’m fairly certain O’Reilly for one would be outraged.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Christmas display issues keep coming up because the vast majority of Americans approve of them. While your interpretation of the courts’ interpretation is undoubtedly correct, that does not make the conclusion they’ve reached right. The idea that judges should shape a society rather than its citizens is incorrect and anti-Constitution, the purpose of that document being to restrict government interference in our lives rather than encourage it.
Does it matter what O’Reilly says?
I’m overjoyed that my town (in Massachusetts mind you) has allowed a Nativity scene and has built a “faux” town complete with a church with a cross on top in the town square.. I’m overjoyed and proud becuase of the tolerance that I am seeing in such a liberal State, not becuase I happen to Be Catholic.
c3: O’Reilly would think so, and so do a lot of people, if the viewership numbers he always boasts about are right.
Michael;
Yeah, and I have to admit, my wife watches Mr. O’Reilly.