General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA threat to freedom of speech at the Supreme Court
Never has American freedom of speech been attacked so flagrantly, promiscuously and on so many fronts. The most egregious examples come from campuses and Congress. On campuses, censorship proliferates as political advocacy is confined to designated spaces. In Congress, 54 Democratic senators voted last year to amend the First Amendment to empower Congress to regulate the quantity, content and timing of political campaign speech.
There are, however, smaller, less visible and hence especially insidious abridgements of the right to make oneself heard. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear such a case from Texas, where it is a crime for a retired veterinarian to share his advice with people seeking it.
Dr. Ron Hines, 72, of Brownsville, is a licensed veterinarian with a PhD in microbiology. He is physically disabled but eager to continue dispensing his healing wisdom worldwide, which he does using the Internet and telephone. He estimates that about 5 percent of those he speaks to are in Texas. He neither dispenses nor prescribes medications. But in 2005, the Texas legislature, with time on its hands and nothing better to do to perfect the state, criminalized such electronic veterinary advice.
Entire Article @ Link: http://wapo.st/1X7mpLX
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)He lost his vet license in Florida for gross malpractice and practicing under the influence of drugs, moved to Texas to launder his record and started giving specific patient advice over the Internet. without physically examining or testing the animals.
"Speech" and practicing medicine are not the same thing.
Or do we want to also say that "psychologists" who provide paid "gay to straight conversion" are also just engaging in "free speech"?
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)practicing medicine remotely by watching some videos of the patient (Terri Schiavo).
Wasn't okay then, and I don't support it now.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Would you like to attach the ability to have free speech, with the Bush-Co terror watch list, or other government entity?
After all, you have recently advocated strongly that we should tie the right to purchase a gun to Bushes "super secret" list, that has no judicial oversight whatsoever, or a way to get an innocent person off of, so why are you upset about the first amendment being crapped on?
Why the strong defence of one amendment, and not of all of them?? After all the Bill of Rights is not like a cheap chinese buffet, the rules that apply to one civil liberty apply to them all?