Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Sam Crane
Recent Activity
-
Sam commented on the article |and your cause of action in that case would be what? A private company has the right to fire an employee that even a small minority of their target audience complains about. It especially has that right when the employee's opinions clearly affect how they do his job. This guy has been hired in order to talk about his opinions to the public. The public has every right to say "we don't like these opinions and don't want to watch them on TV," and CNN has every right to care about the loss of advertising revenue they'd suffer if a chunk of their viewership stopped watching.
As they say, you have the right to say whatever you want. You don't have the right to say whatever you want in the New York Times... or on CNN.
-
Sam commented on the article |Right! From the opinion:
"Trooper Holmes testified that he followed defendant upstairs for two reasons - to protect his own and his fellow trooper's safety and to make sure there was no other person in the home in need of aid. Defendant accepts these police motivations without dispute. No evidence suggested the police had any suspicion of criminal activity by defendant or his girlfriend, or they wished to conduct a search for evidence of crime."
...
"We . . . conclude that the screaming, confirmed by the police to have occurred, gave them an objectively reasonable basis to believe that a limited investigation was necessary to determine whether anyone else was in the home and in need of aid."
"The police are not required to accept the explanation that a person answering the door gives for a distress call. Id. at 609. While loud sex may have been a plausible source of screaming, that explanation was not so reliable that the police acted unreasonably in investigating further. As Trooper Holmes testified, he had no particular reason to disbelieve defendant and his girlfriend, but he also had experienced many instances when persons had lied to him. The potential for harm was too severe for the police to accept an explanation for loud screaming that could as well have been a cover-up of its true source. The police intrusion here was for the reasonable purpose of confirming that no other person was in the home and in need of aid. "Courts are loath to second-guess decisions made in good faith with the intent of protecting life . . . .""
-
Sam commented on the article |I wouldn't be surprised if Kotex were fabricating this so that everyone will get excited and go watch their ads online, without them even having to pay for a spot.
I am sticking with my Diva cup, which is less likely to cause TSS, better for the environment, cheaper, doesn't contain toxins, and doesn't test on animals.
-
Sam commented on the article |
My petition text:
If I wanted to listen to stupid, purposefully offensive rants with no real intellectual content, I'll browse the internet. I don't need CNN for that. Putting Erickson on as a commentator will destroy CNN's great reputation as the network for moderate, level-headed people to escape to when they're sick of frothy-mouthed pundits on MSNBC and Fox News. Please don't leave me with nowhere to go but C-SPAN.
-
Sam commented on the article |I agree - I think countering PFOX with more speech would be the best solution.
I don't know if PFOX sued. My guess is that MCPS backed down and stopped telling kids to throw the materials in the trash, but according to teachthefacts.org, their current sex ed curriculum includes information directly counter to PFOX's, so teachers still do enjoy the right to tell kids PFOX is wrong and harmful. Even PFOX stopped short of arguing that they can't do that - they were just arguing that teachers can't throw PFOX's materials in the trash.
-
Sam commented on the article |
thanks, it's what it was intended to be!
-
Sam commented on the article |
The point I was trying to make is, banning the flyers means PFOX will sue. This will cost the school thousands on thousands of dollars. They've already been in very costly litigation over trying to exclude flyers, all the way up to the fourth circuit, and they lost. They can't engage in "viewpoint discrimination," even when that viewpoint contradicts the curriculum.
PFOX is terrible for doing this. MCPS' hands, however, are tied, unless they want to ban all flyers, including pro-queer ones.
MCPS has also been in pretty extensive litigation over its sex ed curriculum. Luckily, they're on better legal ground there and have pretty consistently won lawsuits against anti-gay organizations that have tried to stop them from teaching pro-gay messages. This is because the sex ed curriculum concerns the school's own speech, which it can control. It just can't suppress other people's speech.
-
Sam commented on the article |
Exactly... the context here is that PFOX has been threatening litigation against the school for years already, and the school has been trying its best to convey the message that PFOX is not a good organization. I don't think it's fair to say that the school needs to spend thousands of dollars on litigation to stand up to PFOX.
-
Sam commented on the article |
I don't like such lawsuits either but this is mainly an argument over what the school IS legally obligated to do, not what the school SHOULD be obligated to do. It's manifestly clear that the school, unless it wants to abolish all flyers, has to allow this particular stuff. In fact, PFOX has been threatening to sue the school since 2007 for not willingly passing out its flyers:
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MontgomeryCountyLetter.pdf
It makes me sick that everyone's going after one of the most gay-friendly school systems in the country, essentially, for thinking that allowing ALL flyers is better than allowing NO flyers. Again, get mad at PFOX, get mad at the courts, don't get mad at the school system.
-
Sam commented on the article |
I think they already know. Check out this 2007 letter from PFOX, talking about how MCPS officials threw out PFOX flyers and told students to throw them out as well, and threatening litigation against the school:
Impact
1 Action
0 Recruits
Top Causes
Organizations
-
National Partnership for Women & Families1 Action 0 Recruits
