A blog that advertises for the comeback of Imus is not one that I would trust to have values I would support, so I don't trust the bloggers implication that the Christian women would be supporting positive values, rather than perhaps suggesting that gays don't belong in the workplace - or in the world. There is no comment from the opposite side, either.

Frightening story about the rise of censorship in Oakland CA, supported by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both George Will and Ed Morrissey are responsible, readable and knowlegable news men.

This is an excellent opinion piece, in which a column by George Will is expanded upon. The author, who writes one of the most thoughtful political opinion blogs, highlights the strange situation caused by left-wingers who will not allow dissent. They are totally inconsistent in their views, as Mr Morrisey notes.

Notice the word "natural" in the context of the offending phrase. I am willing to wager that removal of that one word which has HUGE implications, might alter the outcome of the situation.

Oh boy! This shows the problem of defending free speech that one disagrees with. The earlier comment about the ability of government to ban a different type of speech with which one might agree is quite valid here. I guess one has to go back to Oliver Wendell Holmes and the shouting fire in a crowded theatre analogy - which these ladies' speech was not.

Precious little evidence given, absolutely no context, and from a highly questionable blog, which sounds disturbingly like the Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Hannity echo chamber. Not to be trusted.

This is an important topic and Mr. Will does well to comment on it. Even if you disagree with the opinion of the GNEA, you should be concerned about who decides what speech is acceptable and which is not. Those of you who think the Oakland, CA city government was right to suppress this speech may not like it when some other government office decides that your speech is off limits on another issue.

This is an opinion piece, and does not appear seriously intended to appeal to anyone not already of a similar mindset, so it is perhaps not surprising that the opinion is not very well argued. It is also historically naive, insofar as it imagines some halcyon past age when the sturdy, virtuous American yeomanry venerated the First Amendment for its intrinsic worth alone.

This piece, which mixes reporting and opinion, tells a cautionary tale for all those interested in protecting the Constitutional right of free speech, a concept increasingly under attack.