Tag Archives: Free Speech

News

Hong Kong debates evolution curriculum

Leave a comment

According to the Nature News, Hong Kong is debating whether to support academic freedom in their schools on controversial areas of science.

Hong Kong is in the middle of reforming its school system, and the Education Bureau has issued a series of guidelines for all levels of education to go into effect in September 2009.

…

The guidelines were prepared by the Curriculum Development Council and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.

The change affects the teaching of biology at the secondary level. A section of the proposed curriculum guidelines on ‘Genetics and Evolution’ states the following:

In addition to Darwin’s theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life, to help illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge.

Opponents of “teaching the controversy” are ducking debates with the other side:

There has been heated debate in the Hong Kong media since. On 13 February, the radio series Backchat broadcast a programme on ‘Creationism versus Evolution’. Kwok, dean of the science faculty at the university, backed out of the programme when he found it had been changed to a debate format at the last minute, noting that he is not a specialist in evolution and thus cannot counter detailed arguments regarding evolution versus creation.

Professors who want to teach the evidence for and against naturalistic theories are having to dodge academic censors:

Chris Beling, a solid-state physicist and associate professor in the University of Hong Kong department of physics, debated with two other panellists and took the opportunity to mildly criticize the science faculty for refusing his request to continue a course on the origin of the Universe that included a section on intelligent-design thinking. Instead, he has met in private with students to discuss intelligent design.

Keep in mind that Nature News is biased in favor of naturalism and therefore must defend the position that scientific inquiry can never implicate an intelligence.

In other words, their opinion has been set by their philosophical assumption of naturalism, and experiments and observations cannot overturn their a priori commitment to naturalism.

(H/T: Telic Thoughts)

News

James Inhofe says that the Fairness Doctrine will affect Christian radio

1 Comment

On his official blog, Senator James Inhofe links to an article from the Culture and Media Institute.  The article states that the Fairness Doctrine could affect Christian radio as well as conservative radio.

But, the return would also harm religious speech according to a senior Republican senator, James Inhofe, Okla., and the senior vice president of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), Craig Parshall. Both are warning religious broadcasting is facing a threat.

According to Parshall, there are about 2400 full power radio stations with a Christian format in the United States. About 40 percent of people who regularly listen do so specifically so they can listen to “teaching, preaching and talk” formats, he said. Christian radio and television have a total reach of 75 million he claimed.

Inhofe is quoted in the article as follows:

Those warning shots from the left have raised the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine’s reinstitution, one that Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., says Christian radio isn’t immune to. According to the senior senator from Oklahoma, if the federal government had to enforce a “Fairness Doctrine,” in whatever form it may take in the legislative process, it could open the door to lawsuits by advocacy groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

“Religious messages are, often times, inherently political,” Inhofe said to the Culture & Media Institute. “Even when they are not, they could be considered controversial, and under the Fairness Doctrine as it once existed, controversial issues of public importance must be presented in an equitable and balanced manner. I am concerned that the ACLU and other liberal organizations will use this logic to file lawsuits against anyone who presents a message that they deem to be controversial. Though I believe these lawsuits would ultimately fail on First Amendment grounds, the chilling effect that the mere threat of a lawsuit will have on religious broadcasters could be substantial.”

Another concerned Republican is Cathy McMorris Rodgers. She is cited as follows:

“Over the last 20 years, conservative talk radio has done such an incredible job as far as getting out the message,” McMorris Rodgers said. “And although, ‘Fairness Doctrine’ may sound good, it’s just a clever title to say, ‘We’re going to shutdown conservative talk radio, and we’re going to potentially really hammer Christian radio, Christian television, and it’s very important to not allow this to move forward.”

Congressman Mike Pence also weights in:

“The American people cherish freedom, that’s why President Reagan repealed the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ back in 1987,” Pence said. “This Depression-era government regulation would actually regulate the content of America’s airwaves and represents an existential threat to talk radio—and in particular—Christian talk radio.”

The article ends by discussing a legal case in which a Christian radio station was actually shut down by the FCC, because of the Fairness Doctrine. This happened in 1969, but the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987.
Jim Demint’s Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 is co-sponsored by some of my favorite conservatives, like Tom Coburn and James Inhofe.

News

Jim Demint presses Democrats to vote on free speech

1 Comment
Senator Jim Demint
Senator Jim Demint

James “Jim” Demint is my favorite senator, (although he’s nearly tied with James Inhofe). Demint introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act to protect free political speech in January, and he’s trying to force the Democrats to vote on the so called “Fairness Doctrine” so that their views on free speech over the radio can be made clear. If the Fairness Doctrine passed, free political speech on the radio would be effectively abolished. This is dangerous because talk radio is predominantly conservative just as the news media is predominantly leftist.

This NewsMax.com article notes that Senator Debbie Stabenow, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Tom Harkin all support reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine. Their article explains what would likely follow from passing the bill.

Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and progressive talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.

If they do go ahead and ban political speech on the radio, I wonder what they will call the bill?

Remember that his Freedom of Choice Act abolishes the right of medical personnel to choose not to performing abortions.

The Family Research Council says:

If FOCA is passed, it would automatically overturn:

  • Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
  • Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions

And remember his Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the right of workers to choose not to join a union.

The Heritage Foundation says:

Abolishing elections deprives workers of a fun­damental democratic right. Elections guarantee that all workers can express their views on whether they want to belong to a union. Under card check, how­ever, workers who have not been contacted by union organizers have no say in whether their workplace organizes. If organizers collect cards from a majority of workers, all workers must join the union without a vote.

Maybe the bill to ban free speech on the radio will be called called the Happiness, Ice Cream, Apple Pie, Sunshine and Nothing To See Here Act?