Tweet
ASSEMBLY POSITION ON GENOCIDE DENIAL CASE REINFORCED BY SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT RULING
ArmrRadio.am
18.04.2006 11:53
A recent US Sixth Circuit Court decision virtually echoed the language
used by the Armenian Assembly in its amicus curiae ("friend of the
court") brief in the Massachusetts Genocide Denial Case, when it
ruled that a state, has in effect, broad discretion in determining
the appropriate framework on policy issues of public interest.
Ruling that the state of Tennessee can put on its license plates any
message it chooses, the Court said that the tags are "government
speech" and "not a public forum," and that nothing in the First
Amendment prohibits it.
It went on to say: "Although this exercise of government one-sidedness
with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised,
we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the
First Amendment," Judge John M. Rogers said in his ruling.
To remind, last month, the Assembly filed an amicus brief in response
to a lawsuit brought by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations
(ATAA) and others who are attempting to rewrite history with respect
to the Armenian Genocide. The brief states in part: "There is no
First Amendment basis for objecting to the government's choice in a
curricular guide simply because it expresses a viewpoint with which
the plaintiffs disagree. Indeed, the fundamental flaw in plaintiffs
suit, and the reason why it must be dismissed, is that the Curricular
Guide is government speech and there is no First Amendment basis for
objecting when the government chooses to speak."
ArmrRadio.am
18.04.2006 11:53
A recent US Sixth Circuit Court decision virtually echoed the language
used by the Armenian Assembly in its amicus curiae ("friend of the
court") brief in the Massachusetts Genocide Denial Case, when it
ruled that a state, has in effect, broad discretion in determining
the appropriate framework on policy issues of public interest.
Ruling that the state of Tennessee can put on its license plates any
message it chooses, the Court said that the tags are "government
speech" and "not a public forum," and that nothing in the First
Amendment prohibits it.
It went on to say: "Although this exercise of government one-sidedness
with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised,
we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the
First Amendment," Judge John M. Rogers said in his ruling.
To remind, last month, the Assembly filed an amicus brief in response
to a lawsuit brought by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations
(ATAA) and others who are attempting to rewrite history with respect
to the Armenian Genocide. The brief states in part: "There is no
First Amendment basis for objecting to the government's choice in a
curricular guide simply because it expresses a viewpoint with which
the plaintiffs disagree. Indeed, the fundamental flaw in plaintiffs
suit, and the reason why it must be dismissed, is that the Curricular
Guide is government speech and there is no First Amendment basis for
objecting when the government chooses to speak."