Roxana Cooper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't Freedom of Speech, an ancient British
> tradition I believe, cover this?


If by ancient, you mean the 17th century? The first idea of freedom of speech in Britain (penned to paper at any rate) was 1609.

Wikipedia has a nice article.
[en.wikipedia.org]

On the subject of the creationist zoo, I don't think the intention is to interfere with the zoo, but merely to promote/report on it and its activities... ie use freedom of speech to disagree, publicly.

OTOH Action could be taken under the 'no harm' concept...
Mill argue[d] that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[32]

It could be argued that presenting any educational agenda to school children as factual based when it is not is harmful. In my opinion, it should be considered at least as harmful as theoretical science presented as verified fact with no questions permitted (witness Discovery Channel documentaries occasionally)

Unquestionable blind dogma is just ignorant (in my own words) regardless of the source. I've never understood blind subservience and acceptance -- it is so, because it is??

Regardless, the intent here, as I perceived it, was to make sure that that the place received more attention so that other, free speech exercisers, could speak on the subject as well.

My 2 cents, for what it's worth, which is nothing if not an exercise in Free Speech