Supreme Court Has Ruled That Soliciting Money

¶ … Supreme Court has ruled that soliciting money in a busy airport is something that the government can stop because it is so disruptive. What other activities do you think the government could prevent because they are too disruptive?

It's a little hard to justify how the Supreme Court found asking for solicitations in an airport to be "too disruptive," because the person being solicited simply has to say "No thanks," and go on his or her way." We see people soliciting for organizations in busy intersections. If the car in front of us has to fish for money, they can delay progress through the intersection, which could lead to accidents. That seems like far more of a disruption, and yet it seems to fall within the law. It would seem, based on the airport ruling, that if soliciting in an airport can be banned, then collecting money in intersections could be banned also. That interpretation could easily be stretched to a ban on passing out flyers at intersections, even though that transaction wouldn't take as long. It seems possible that such activities could also be banned in such places as subways, which are not only very crowded at some times, but more dangerous than airports, because of the open tracks.

If the government cannot force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance, is there anything they can make people say? If so, what kinds of forced speech do you think would be legal?

The obvious example of something we can be forced to say is testimony in court. There are some restrictions: a wife can't be forced to testify against her husband, and presumably, a husband can't be forced to testify against his wife. A person cannot be made to testify against him or herself.

However, if we attempt to lie in court and get court, we can be charged with perjury, and the consequences of that can include jail time. There are exceptions there as well. Therapists cannot be forced to testify as to what patients said under most circumstances, and members of the clergy cannot be forced to repeat things told to them in the confessional. Members of the press have special protections to help ensure freedom of the press. But for the most part, if we have knowledge important to trial proceedings and are called to court, we have to say what we know.

In your opinion, are there any subjects the government could make illegal to teach in a private school?

It occurs to one that there one could make a case for some topics being illegal. For instance, if students were being taught how to be a terrorist, it seems that the greater needs of the society would override the school's right to freedom of speech. By that reasoning, military academies would be fine, including those that taught military tactics and use of firearms. However, if the school taught an ideology of terrorism, that might be unprotected, whether they actually taught the students how to execute acts of terrorism or not. This could become rather complicated. Is the concept of "Jihad" automatically a philosophy advocating resistance to one's government, or does it depend on what the students are taught is justified under the practice of Jihad? Both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are affected here. A related example might be a school that teaches students to commit hate crimes.

Do you think that the government could stop a group of Satan worshipers from sending their children to a private school that taught Satan worship?