Marc I know of no case dealing with prohibitions against the targeting of students based on religion or race. I think the school's best argument would be that targeted communications impinge on the rights of other students. If the meaning of harassment is context specific, as I think it is, public schools ought to have more discretion in protecting students against targeted speech than would be permissible in other settings.
Another approach might focus on the fact that the pamphlets were left on student's desks. Schools have some authority to control whether school property that is designated for particular purposes is used for other purposes. Desks are not mailboxes for private communications. Even if they were utilized as the site for some school approved communications between private parties, some content discriminatory regulations would be upheld (See Perry -- upholding content-based restrictions on the use of school mailboxes) I am dashing out to catch a flight and can not spend more time on this right now. But I will give more thought to it over the weekend. The school will have to proceed carefully, but there may be ways for it to protect students of minority faiths from this kind of behavior. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 08:55 AM 11/5/2004, you wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01C4C32E.D6D7B7F0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The problem I see is that the state is not discriminating; students are and > they would have a freedom of speech and association claim. The state could > not on a public sidewalk invoke civil rights laws to prohibit a distribution > of literature to Jews or Christians only, could it? > > Marc Stern > > > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:52 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Pamphlets at School > > > > Marc's question was not whether the school could prohibit distribution of > religious literature; as I understand it, it was whether the school could > prohibit literature distributors from targeting Jewish students as the > audience for the literature, regardless of its content. I think the answer > to that question is probably "yes" -- a simple prohibition on religious > discrimination against students would do the trick, and it would be no more > unconstitutional than are the bans on religious discrimination in, e.g., the > Civil Rights Act. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gene Summerlin" < <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" < > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:43 AM > > Subject: Pamphlets at School > > > > > While the school could potentially eliminate the distribution of all > flyers > > or pamphlets as a time, place or manner restriction, I seriously doubt > that > > a content based prohibition on just religious speech would be upheld. > > > > The right to free speech includes the right to distribute literature. > Martin > > v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943). The Supreme Court considers the > > distribution of printed material as pure speech. Texas v. Johnson, 491 > U.S. > > 397, 406 (1989). The peaceful distribution of literature is a protected > form > > of free speech just like verbal speech. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. > > 171, 176 (1983) ("leafletting is protected speech."); Lovell v. City of > > Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451-52 (1938) ("liberty of circulating is as > > essential to [freedom of speech] as liberty of publishing; indeed without > > circulation, the publication would be of little value.") > > The Supreme Court has recognized "that the right to distribute flyers and > > literature lies at the heart of the liberties guaranteed by the speech and > > press clauses of the First Amendment." ISKCON v. Lee, 112 S. Ct. 2711, > 2720 > > (1992). > > > > Of course, in a school setting the school has the right to prohibited > speech > > activities if those activities "substantially interfere with the work of > the > > school, or impinge upon the rights of other students." Tinker v. Des > Moines > > Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969). However, the Tinker Court > made > > it clear that impinging upon the rights of other students is something > > substantially more than communicating a message that others disagree with > or > > find offensive. "Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause > > trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any > > word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates > > from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a > > disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk and our > > history says that it is this risk of hazardous freedom -- this kind of > > openness -- that is the basis of our national strength and of the > > independence of vigor of Americans who grew up and live in this relatively > > permissive, often disputatious, society." Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508-09 > > (citations omitted). > > > > Nor can school officials require "preapproval" of distributed material. > See > > Fujishima v. Board of Educ., 460 F.2d 1355, 1358 (7th Cir. 1972). See > e.g., > > Nitzderg v. Parks, 525 F.2d 378, 383-85 (4th Cir. 1975); Baughman v. Board > > of Educ., 478 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1973); Quarterman v. Byrd, 453 F.2d 54 > > (4th Cir. 1971); Eisner v. Stamford Board of Educ., 440 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. > > 1971); Riseman v. School Committee, 439 F.2d 148 (1st Cir. 1971); > > Johnston-Loehner v. O'Brien, 859 F.Supp. 575 (M.D. Fla. 1994); Slotterback > > v. Interboro Sch. Dist., 766 F.Supp. 280 (E.D. Penn. 1991); Riveria v. > Board > > of Regents, 721 F.Supp. 1189, 1197 (D. Col. 1989); Sullivan v. Houston > > Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F.Supp. 1149 (S.D. Tex. 1971); Zucker v. Panitz, > 299 > > F.Supp. 102 (S.D. N.Y. 1969). See also Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse > Sch., > > 98 F.3d 1530 (7th Cir. 1996); Hedges v. Wauconda Community Unit Sch. Dist. > > No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295 (7th Cir. 1993); Bystrom v. Friedley High Sch., 822 > > F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1987); Shanley v. Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist., 462 F.2d > > 960 (5th Cir. 1972). > > > >>From a practical perspective, if I were asked to advise the school I would > > be sure to inform them that if they decide to enact such a ban, they > better > > start a litigation fund because it is sure to start a lawsuit. > > > > Good luck, Marc. > > > > Gene Summerlin > > Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C. > > 210 Windsor Place > > 330 So. 10th St. > > Lincoln, NE 68508 > > (402) 434-8040 > > (402) 434-8044 (FAX) > > (402) 730-5344 (Mobile) > > <http://www.osolaw.com> www.osolaw.com > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of marc stern > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:58 AM > > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' > > Subject: (no subject) > > > > > > Anonymous students left pamphlets calling on students to accept Jesus on > the > > desks of Jewish public high school students and no other students. I have > > been asked whether a school could ban religiously targeted distribution of > > any pamphlet. Any responses? > > Marc Stern > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > > <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > ------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01C4C32E.D6D7B7F0 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = > xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = > xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = > xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = > xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";> > > <head> > <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = > charset=3Dus-ascii"> > <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> > <!--[if !mso]> > <style> > v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} > </style> > <![endif]--><o:SmartTagType > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = > name=3D"PostalCode"/> > <o:SmartTagType = > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > name=3D"country-region"/> > <o:SmartTagType = > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > name=3D"place"/> > <o:SmartTagType = > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > name=3D"State"/> > <o:SmartTagType = > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > name=3D"City"/> > <o:SmartTagType = > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > name=3D"Street"/> > <o:SmartTagType = > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > name=3D"address"/> > <o:SmartTagType = > namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > name=3D"PersonName"/> > <!--[if !mso]> > <style> > st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } > </style> > <![endif]--> > <style> > <!-- > /* Font Definitions */ > @font-face > {font-family:Tahoma; > panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} > /* Style Definitions */ > p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal > {margin:0in; > margin-bottom:.0001pt; > font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} > a:link, span.MsoHyperlink > {color:blue; > text-decoration:underline;} > a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed > {color:blue; > text-decoration:underline;} > span.EmailStyle18 > {mso-style-type:personal-reply; > font-family:Arial; > color:navy;} > @page Section1 > {size:8.5in 11.0in; > margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} > div.Section1 > {page:Section1;} > --> > </style> > > </head> > > <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue> > > <div class=3DSection1> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The problem I see is that the state = > is not > discriminating; students are and they would have a freedom of speech and > association claim. The state could not on a public sidewalk invoke civil = > rights > laws to prohibit a distribution of literature to Jews or Christians = > only, could > it?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Marc = > Stern<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> > > <div> > > <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = > size=3D3 > face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> > > <hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1> > > </span></font></div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font = > size=3D2 > face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> = > <st1:PersonName > w:st=3D"on">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</st1:PersonName> = > [mailto:<st1:PersonName > w:st=3D"on">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</st1:PersonName>] = > <b><span > style=3D'font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Marty Lederman<br> > <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, November = > 05, 2004 > 11:52 AM<br> > <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; = > <st1:PersonName > w:st=3D"on">Law & Religion issues for Law = > Academics</st1:PersonName><br> > <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: Pamphlets at = > School</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Marc's question was not whether the school could = > prohibit > distribution of religious literature; as I understand it, it was whether = > the > school could prohibit literature distributors from targeting Jewish = > students as > the <em><i><font face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-family:Arial'>audience</span></font></i></em> > for the literature, regardless of its content. I think the answer = > to that > question is probably "yes" -- a simple prohibition on = > religious > discrimination against students would do the trick, and it would be no = > more > unconstitutional than are the bans on religious discrimination in, e.g., = > the > Civil Rights Act.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>----- Original Message ----- = > </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>From: "Gene Summerlin" <</span></font><a > href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</span></font></a><font = > size=3D2 > face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>></span></font><o:p></o:p= > ></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>To: "'<st1:PersonName w:st=3D"on">Law & = > Religion > issues for Law Academics</st1:PersonName>'" <</span></font><a > href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><font size=3D2 = > face=3DArial><span > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font- family:Arial'>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</= > span></font></a><font > size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>></span></font><o:p></o:p= > ></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:43 = > AM</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>Subject: Pamphlets at = > School</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > </div> > > <div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> > > </div> > > <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; > font-family:Arial'>> While the school could potentially eliminate the > distribution of all flyers<br> > > or pamphlets as a time, place or manner restriction, I seriously = > doubt > that<br> > > a content based prohibition on just religious speech would be = > upheld.<br> > > <br> > > The right to free speech includes the right to distribute = > literature. > Martin<br> > > v. City of <st1:City w:st=3D"on">Struthers</st1:City>, 319 = > <st1:country-region > w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country- region> = > 141 > (1943). The Supreme Court considers the<br> > > distribution of printed material as pure speech. <st1:State = > w:st=3D"on">Texas</st1:State> > v. Johnson, 491 <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place = > w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region><br> > > 397, 406 (1989). The peaceful distribution of literature is a = > protected > form<br> > > of free speech just like verbal speech. <st1:country-region = > w:st=3D"on">United > States</st1:country-region> v. Grace, 461 <st1:country-region = > w:st=3D"on"><st1:place > w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region><br> > > 171, 176 (1983) ("leafletting is protected speech."); = > Lovell v. > City of<br> > > <st1:City w:st=3D"on">Griffin</st1:City>, 303 <st1:country-region = > w:st=3D"on"><st1:place > w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 444, 451-52 (1938) > ("liberty of circulating is as<br> > > essential to [freedom of speech] as liberty of publishing; indeed = > without<br> > > circulation, the publication would be of little value.")<br> > > The Supreme Court has recognized "that the right to distribute = > flyers > and<br> > > literature lies at the heart of the liberties guaranteed by the = > speech and<br> > > press clauses of the First Amendment." ISKCON v. Lee, 112 = > <st1:place > w:st=3D"on">S. Ct.</st1:place> 2711, 2720<br> > > (1992).<br> > > <br> > > Of course, in a school setting the school has the right to = > prohibited > speech<br> > > activities if those activities "substantially interfere with = > the work > of the<br> > > school, or impinge upon the rights of other students." Tinker = > v. <st1:City > w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on">Des Moines</st1:place></st1:City><br> > > Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place = > w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> > 503, 509 (1969). However, the <st1:Street w:st=3D"on"><st1:address = > w:st=3D"on">Tinker > Court</st1:address></st1:Street> made<br> > > it clear that impinging upon the rights of other students is = > something<br> > > substantially more than communicating a message that others = > disagree with > or<br> > > find offensive. "Any departure from absolute = > regimentation may > cause<br> > > trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire = > fear. Any<br> > > word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that = > deviates<br> > > from the views of another person may start an argument or cause = > a<br> > > disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk and = > our<br> > > history says that it is this risk of hazardous freedom -- this kind = > of<br> > > openness -- that is the basis of our national strength and of = > the<br> > > independence of vigor of Americans who grew up and live in this = > relatively<br> > > permissive, often disputatious, society." Tinker, 393 = > <st1:country-region > w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country- region> = > at 508-09<br> > > (citations omitted).<br> > > <br> > > Nor can school officials require "preapproval" of = > distributed > material. See<br> > > Fujishima v. Board of Educ., 460 F.2d 1355, 1358 (7th Cir. 1972). = > See > e.g.,<br> > > Nitzderg v. Parks, 525 F.2d 378, 383-85 (4th Cir. 1975); Baughman = > v. Board<br> > > of Educ., 478 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1973); Quarterman v. Byrd, 453 = > F.2d 54<br> > > (4th Cir. 1971); Eisner v. <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place = > w:st=3D"on">Stamford</st1:place></st1:City> > Board of Educ., 440 F.2d 803 (2d Cir.<br> > > 1971); Riseman v. School Committee, 439 F.2d 148 (1st Cir. = > 1971);<br> > > Johnston-Loehner v. O'Brien, 859 F.Supp. 575 (M.D. Fla. 1994); = > Slotterback<br> > > v. Interboro Sch. Dist., 766 F.Supp. 280 (E.D. Penn. 1991); Riveria = > v. > Board<br> > > of Regents, 721 F.Supp. 1189, 1197 (D. <st1:country-region = > w:st=3D"on">Col.</st1:country-region> > 1989); Sullivan v. <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place = > w:st=3D"on">Houston</st1:place></st1:City><br> > > Indep. Sch. Dist., 333 F.Supp. 1149 (S.D. <st1:State = > w:st=3D"on"><st1:place > w:st=3D"on">Tex.</st1:place></st1:State> 1971); Zucker v. Panitz, = > 299<br> > > F.Supp. 102 (S.D. N.Y. 1969). See also Muller v. Jefferson = > Lighthouse > Sch.,<br> > > 98 F.3d 1530 (7th Cir. 1996); Hedges v. Wauconda Community Unit = > Sch. Dist.<br> > > No. 118, 9 F.3d 1295 (7th Cir. 1993); Bystrom v. Friedley High = > Sch., 822<br> > > F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1987); Shanley v. <st1:place = > w:st=3D"on">Northeast Indep</st1:place>. > Sch. Dist., 462 F.2d<br> > > 960 (5th Cir. 1972).<br> > > <br> > >>From a practical perspective, if I were asked to advise the = > school I > would<br> > > be sure to inform them that if they decide to enact such a ban, = > they > better<br> > > start a litigation fund because it is sure to start a lawsuit.<br> > > <br> > > Good luck, Marc.<br> > > <br> > > Gene Summerlin<br> > > Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C.<br> > > <st1:Street w:st=3D"on"><st1:address w:st=3D"on">210 Windsor = > Place</st1:address></st1:Street><br> > > 330 So. <st1:Street w:st=3D"on"><st1:address w:st=3D"on">10th = > St</st1:address></st1:Street>.<br> > > <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:City w:st=3D"on">Lincoln</st1:City>, = > <st1:State > w:st=3D"on">NE</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode = > w:st=3D"on">68508</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br> > > (402) 434-8040<br> > > (402) 434-8044 (FAX)<br> > > (402) 730-5344 (<st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place = > w:st=3D"on">Mobile</st1:place></st1:City>)<br> > > </span></font><a href=3D"http://www.osolaw.com";><font size=3D2 = > face=3DArial><span > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font- family:Arial'>www.osolaw.com</span></font>= > </a><br> > <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>> </span></font><a > href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size: > 10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</span></font></a><br> > <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>> <br> > > <br> > > -----Original Message-----<br> > > From: </span></font><a = > href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><font > size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>religionlaw- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > la.edu</span></font></a><br> > <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>> > [mailto:<st1:PersonName = > w:st=3D"on">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</st1:PersonName>]On > Behalf Of marc stern<br> > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:58 AM<br> > > To: '<st1:PersonName w:st=3D"on">Law & Religion issues for Law = > Academics</st1:PersonName>'<br> > > Subject: (no subject)<br> > > <br> > > <br> > > Anonymous students left pamphlets calling on students to accept = > Jesus on > the<br> > > desks of Jewish public high school students and no other students. = > I have<br> > > been asked whether a school could ban religiously targeted = > distribution of<br> > > any pamphlet. Any responses?<br> > > Marc Stern<br> > > <br> > > <br> > > <br> > > _______________________________________________<br> > > To post, send message to </span></font><a > href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><font size=3D2 = > face=3DArial><span > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font- family:Arial'>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</= > span></font></a><br> > <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see<br> > > </span></font><a > href=3D"http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw"><font= > size=3D2 > face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi- bi= > n/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw</span></font></a><br> > <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>> <br> > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed = > as<br> > > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages = > that are<br> > > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can = > (rightly or<br> > > wrongly) forward the messages to others.<br> > > <br> > > _______________________________________________<br> > > To post, send message to </span></font><a > href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><font size=3D2 = > face=3DArial><span > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font- family:Arial'>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</= > span></font></a><br> > <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see = > </span></font><a > href=3D"http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw"><font= > size=3D2 > face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi- bi= > n/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw</span></font></a><br> > <font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = > style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>> <br> > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed = > as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that = > are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly = > or > wrongly) forward the messages to others.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> > > </div> > > </body> > > </html> > > ------=_NextPart_000_00C7_01C4C32E.D6D7B7F0-- > > > _______________________________________________ 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 Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
