RE: Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- the View fromMontgomery County

[Douglas Laycock]

        Marty says they allowed 389 out of 402 requests.  That is 
consistent with applying a child-adjusted compelling interest test, 
rejecting only those that violate Tinker or Bethel, and probably a few more 
that the school finds objectionable on some ground that it might or might 
not be able to defend.  Approving that many is not consistent with 
approving only those that the school itself endorses or only those that 
relate directly to the curriculum.  To claim that they can allow that many 
private groups to speak, and still retain unrestrained discretion to pick 
and choose on the basis of viewpoint, is to create a new category that does 
not exist in the Supreme Court's public forum jurisprudence.  If that 
category were created, schools could play favorites however they wanted.

        The flyers are sent home to parents , and parental permission is 
required for the child to attend the club, as a protection for  children 
and for the authority of parents.  If that step were removed, and the 
flyers just handed to the kids, the compelled speech argument that people 
have been making would disappear.  But from the perspective of those making 
the argument, that should make the program worse, not better.


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
        512-232-1341 (voice)
        512-471-6988 (fax)
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw