UnNews:Pro-slavery activists seek Supreme Court nod
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|This article is part of UnNews||A newsstand that's brimming with issues|
18 January 2013
Washington DC, USA -- The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a case regarding the extend of free speech restrictions that the government can place on institutions the receive federal funding. At issue is a 2003 law which requires any institution the receives federal funding to fight the global spread of HIV and other infectious diseases to adopt an explicit policy against prostitution and human trafficking.
"We feel that attaching strings to federal funding, as the circuit court found, is an unconstitutional limitation on the freedom of speech. As American citizens, it is our right to speak freely on all issue. This right includes, nay, chiefly protects, the right to hold unpopular opinions, such as advocating the legality of human trafficking," said a representative for, the Alliance for Open Human Trafficking International Inc, (AOHTI Inc) a nonprofit group opposed to the law.
She continued, "Some people say that human trafficking is a form of slavery. I would inform those people that our founding fathers proudly owned slaves. Many of them were known to have taken sexual advantage of their female slaves, such as Thomas Jefferson. That is very similar in nature to human trafficking. So, in a way, America was founded by people who held other people in a state of involuntary servitude and violated them sexually."
She dismissed criticism that human trafficking is illegal, say "Some people have complained that slavery in general, and human trafficking is illegal in the United States. We are fully aware of this and do not advocate human trafficking in jurisdictions in which it is illegal. We are also well aware of the legal obstacles in re-legalizing slavery in the United States, specifically, the difficulty of overturning the thirteenth amendment. However, the first amendment right to petition the government includes the right to advocate a change in the law. For example, women were not allowed to vote at one time. Following the logic of my critics, changing any law is bad."
She also dismissed those who pointed out that AOHTI Inc is free to advocate whatever it choices, and the law only prevents it from receiving a specific government grant. "This is about the federal government using our tax dollars to promote a specific agenda," she said. "The federal government trying to influence 3rd world nations to adopt its anti-human trafficking agenda. We believe that human trafficking helps in the fight against Aids and other STDs. Human trafficking limits the pool of women, and men, who are likely to be raped or otherwise coerced into a sexual encounter, in obviously helps is disease control. Now, some people object to legalized human trafficking for a variety of reasons, as is their human right. However, one does not have a right to push that opinion on others by attaching strings to federal funding."
- Jonathan Stempel "Supreme Court to review free speech of HIV/AIDS groups". Reuters, January 11, 2013
- David Wagner "Inside the New Supreme Court Case on AIDS Workers and Prostitution". The Atlantic Wire, January 11, 2013