Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
Marc, I don't recall a hypo involving "Go To Hell." I think if a school wants to be sure that it is not liable for violating the free speech rights of any group that is part of a public forum, it should avoid viewpoint based restrictions on speech. Any attempt to forbid "Jesus is the only way" slogans, while allowing "Jesus is love," or "stop homophobia" slogans, risks being considered viewpoint discrimination in a public (or even a nonpublic) forum for student/parent groups. What is more, it is very possibly a violation of the EC for a govt school to endorse a position of disapproval for private expression of a central idea of a private religious group (not to mention the denominational discrimination that results when "Jesus is love" is permitted, but "Jesus is salvation" is not permitted). Finally, it is not enough to assert that a message like "Jesus is the only way" is disruptive. I think the school would need to prove that there is a substantial risk of serious disruption of school activities, and the fact that a few families find the message offensive is not sufficient to justify taking the case out of Tinker and Good News protection. If a few parents complain about the GLBT rainbow posters mentioned earlier in this thread, may a school ban the rainbow as disruptive, while permitting other student groups to display their slogans and symbols? Cheers, Rick Duncan ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
Why is equality the test? What if school officials show that believe or go to hell is disruptive but not recycle or die? There is discussion of this problem in some of the school confederate paraphernalia cases Marc - Original Message - From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wed Mar 04 18:16:29 2009 Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case Chip asks a good question about whether the school could censor the See You at the Pole group from saying "All those who seek salvation through Jesus are welcome" on their posters. First, I doubt if this group would ever say this, because part of the group's evangelistic purpose is to attract "nonbelievers" to the event, in order to share the Gospel with them. But let's suppose the group wanted to say something like "Jesus is the only way to salvation" on their poster. Could the school censor these words because of the school's dislike of the message? It depends on what the school allows other student or parent groups to do, doesn't it? If the school allows the Environmental Student Group to say "being green is the right way to be" or the GLBT group to say "be tolerant not homophobic," then I think the Religious Group has the same right to include their slogan on its posters. If there is concern that student speech endorsing religion will be mistaken for that of the school, a general disclaimer requirement for all student groups requiring a statement that the speech is that of the private group and not that of the school should make clear that the school does not endorse the private speaker' message. No? Just apply the same access, the same equality of expression, for all student groups, both religious and secular, and you will be on the good side of the 1A. Cheers, Rick Duncan ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
Chip asks a good question about whether the school could censor the See You at the Pole group from saying "All those who seek salvation through Jesus are welcome" on their posters. First, I doubt if this group would ever say this, because part of the group's evangelistic purpose is to attract "nonbelievers" to the event, in order to share the Gospel with them. But let's suppose the group wanted to say something like "Jesus is the only way to salvation" on their poster. Could the school censor these words because of the school's dislike of the message? It depends on what the school allows other student or parent groups to do, doesn't it? If the school allows the Environmental Student Group to say "being green is the right way to be" or the GLBT group to say "be tolerant not homophobic," then I think the Religious Group has the same right to include their slogan on its posters. If there is concern that student speech endorsing religion will be mistaken for that of the school, a general disclaimer requirement for all student groups requiring a statement that the speech is that of the private group and not that of the school should make clear that the school does not endorse the private speaker' message. No? Just apply the same access, the same equality of expression, for all student groups, both religious and secular, and you will be on the good side of the 1A. Cheers, Rick Duncan ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
Just to clarify the somewhat angry tone of my response to the ADF press release, that anger was a response to parts of that release like the one I quoted about "the ACLU’s long-term record of fear, intimidation, and disinformation." As a long time ACLU volunteer, I found that accusation frankly offensive. I was not offended in any way, however, by Prof. Duncan posting the item and I have no expectation that only "unbiased" items will be posted here. From what I know of the esteemed membership of this list, you are all probably better qualified than I am to deconstruct an ADF press release and need no protection from bias. I just happened to have the time and the righteous indignation this morning to do the deconstruction. And, I think these past facts are important to an analysis of this current incident given that past Establishment Clause violations can turn what looks like student initiated activity into something else a la Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in these discussions Allen Asch -Original Message- From: Rick Duncan To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:45 am Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case I too appreciate getting a more complete account of the facts. I forwarded the ADF press release because it contained links to the complaint and to the pictures before and after the censorship. It is wonderful to be able to show the actual pictures--both before and after the restriction--when discussing these issues in class. But I certainly agree that religious groups should have no more and no less access to public schools than other groups advertising meetings and events. Equal access means equal access. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."--Ben Franklin (perhaps misattributed, but still worthy of Franklin) "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence." --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst." -- Id. --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Ira (Chip) Lupu wrote: From: Ira (Chip) Lupu Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 8:29 AM I appreciate Rick's calling our attention to this case, and I deeply appreciate Allen's amplification of the historical record. I forwarded Rick's post yesterday to several students who are writing papers for me on issues related to this case, but I warned them not to t ake the ADF release at face value. I of course forwarded Allen's post to those students this morning. Chip Original message >Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:46:42 EST >From: aa...@aol.com >Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case >To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > Although I'm not claiming the school was correct in > this instance, there is a context to the case that > the ADF press release completely leaves out. I used > to be surprised at the dishonesty of these ADF press > releases, but now I see them as puzzles where the > challenge is to find the actual facts. From this > press release, for example, you'd never know that > the ACLU successfully challenged several practices > in this school district that violated the > Establishment Clause. The closest the press release > comes to revealing that information is the two > sentence paragraph: > > "The American Civil Liberties Union previously sued > the school to stop it from recognizing such events, > including “See You at the Pole” and the National > Day of Prayer. In May 2008, a federal judge refused > to grant the ACLU’s request." > > Now, if you follow that link, it leads to an ADF > page that, again, never mentions the school's > Establishment Clause violations and describes the > May 2008 result like this: "“This is a win for > religious freedom and, if not a total loss for the > ACLU, certainly a hollow, shallow victory." Even > worse, that ADF page provides a link to the ACLU > complaint that starts on page 19, again cutting out > the most pertinent facts. Similarly, the link to the > judge's decision on that page leads to another ADF > page that includes only the order, cutting out the > memorandum describing in detail the school's > Establishment Clause violations. > > The full judge's decision is included in the May 30, > 2008, ACLU press release on the Wilson County case > at: > > http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/35742prs20080530.html > > Here are five pertinent paragraphs: >
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
Equal access does not mean the school must be totally indifferent to the content of the posters and flyers. Especially in a context in which the school has a history of Establishment Clause violations, it should have some discretion to make certain that it does not violate court orders or invite a new lawsuit. The posters for "See You at the Pole" were allowed. Mentioning that what will happen "at the Pole" is group prayer among students should also be allowed. And we can all see that censoring "In God We Trust" is foolish and unnecessary. But the Establishment Clause interdicts some religious speech by government (that is, religious speech does not get "equal access" in the competition for what government may promote), and government (especially with this sort of history) has to have some room to ensure that it is not complicit in another violation. Does Rick or others think that students in this school (or any other) have a 1st A right not simply to advertise the event, but to add to their posters "All those who seek salvation through Jesus are welcome"? Chip Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
I too appreciate getting a more complete account of the facts. I forwarded the ADF press release because it contained links to the complaint and to the pictures before and after the censorship. It is wonderful to be able to show the actual pictures--both before and after the restriction--when discussing these issues in class. But I certainly agree that religious groups should have no more and no less access to public schools than other groups advertising meetings and events. Equal access means equal access. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."--Ben Franklin (perhaps misattributed, but still worthy of Franklin) "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence." --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst." -- Id. --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Ira (Chip) Lupu wrote: From: Ira (Chip) Lupu Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 8:29 AM I appreciate Rick's calling our attention to this case, and I deeply appreciate Allen's amplification of the historical record. I forwarded Rick's post yesterday to several students who are writing papers for me on issues related to this case, but I warned them not to take the ADF release at face value. I of course forwarded Allen's post to those students this morning. Chip Original message >Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:46:42 EST >From: aa...@aol.com >Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case >To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > Although I'm not claiming the school was correct in > this instance, there is a context to the case that > the ADF press release completely leaves out. I used > to be surprised at the dishonesty of these ADF press > releases, but now I see them as puzzles where the > challenge is to find the actual facts. From this > press release, for example, you'd never know that > the ACLU successfully challenged several practices > in this school district that violated the > Establishment Clause. The closest the press release > comes to revealing that information is the two > sentence paragraph: > > "The American Civil Liberties Union previously sued > the school to stop it from recognizing such events, > including “See You at the Pole” and the National > Day of Prayer. In May 2008, a federal judge refused > to grant the ACLU’s request." > > Now, if you follow that link, it leads to an ADF > page that, again, never mentions the school's > Establishment Clause violations and describes the > May 2008 result like this: "“This is a win for > religious freedom and, if not a total loss for the > ACLU, certainly a hollow, shallow victory." Even > worse, that ADF page provides a link to the ACLU > complaint that starts on page 19, again cutting out > the most pertinent facts. Similarly, the link to the > judge's decision on that page leads to another ADF > page that includes only the order, cutting out the > memorandum describing in detail the school's > Establishment Clause violations. > > The full judge's decision is included in the May 30, > 2008, ACLU press release on the Wilson County case > at: > > http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/35742prs20080530.html > > Here are five pertinent paragraphs: > > > The lawsuit, Doe v. Wilson County School System, > filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of > Tennessee (ACLU-TN) charged that a variety of > religious activities occurring at Lakeview > Elementary School in Mt. Juliet, including praying > during school hours by a group of parents who then > distributed fliers in classrooms informing > individual students they had been prayed for, were > unconstitutional. > > "In a strongly worded 59-page decision, the Judge > ruled that school officials were engaged in a > systematic pattern of religious violations and that > the school supported and tolerated religious > activities taking place on its campus," said Hedy > Weinberg, ACLU-TN Executive Director. > > After nearly two years of litigation, the Court > ruled that Lakeview Elementary School administrators > can not continue to give preferential treatment to a > religious group called the Praying Parents. In the > past, this religious group was given nearly > unfettered access to students and faculty to promote > Christianity and prayer. In finding that these > activities violated the First Amendment, the Court > found that the effect of the group's predominant > religious purpose was to advance
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
I appreciate Rick's calling our attention to this case, and I deeply appreciate Allen's amplification of the historical record. I forwarded Rick's post yesterday to several students who are writing papers for me on issues related to this case, but I warned them not to take the ADF release at face value. I of course forwarded Allen's post to those students this morning. Chip Original message >Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:46:42 EST >From: aa...@aol.com >Subject: Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case >To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > Although I'm not claiming the school was correct in > this instance, there is a context to the case that > the ADF press release completely leaves out. I used > to be surprised at the dishonesty of these ADF press > releases, but now I see them as puzzles where the > challenge is to find the actual facts. From this > press release, for example, you'd never know that > the ACLU successfully challenged several practices > in this school district that violated the > Establishment Clause. The closest the press release > comes to revealing that information is the two > sentence paragraph: > > "The American Civil Liberties Union previously sued > the school to stop it from recognizing such events, > including “See You at the Pole” and the National > Day of Prayer. In May 2008, a federal judge refused > to grant the ACLU’s request." > > Now, if you follow that link, it leads to an ADF > page that, again, never mentions the school's > Establishment Clause violations and describes the > May 2008 result like this: "“This is a win for > religious freedom and, if not a total loss for the > ACLU, certainly a hollow, shallow victory." Even > worse, that ADF page provides a link to the ACLU > complaint that starts on page 19, again cutting out > the most pertinent facts. Similarly, the link to the > judge's decision on that page leads to another ADF > page that includes only the order, cutting out the > memorandum describing in detail the school's > Establishment Clause violations. > > The full judge's decision is included in the May 30, > 2008, ACLU press release on the Wilson County case > at: > > http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/35742prs20080530.html > > Here are five pertinent paragraphs: > > > The lawsuit, Doe v. Wilson County School System, > filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of > Tennessee (ACLU-TN) charged that a variety of > religious activities occurring at Lakeview > Elementary School in Mt. Juliet, including praying > during school hours by a group of parents who then > distributed fliers in classrooms informing > individual students they had been prayed for, were > unconstitutional. > > "In a strongly worded 59-page decision, the Judge > ruled that school officials were engaged in a > systematic pattern of religious violations and that > the school supported and tolerated religious > activities taking place on its campus," said Hedy > Weinberg, ACLU-TN Executive Director. > > After nearly two years of litigation, the Court > ruled that Lakeview Elementary School administrators > can not continue to give preferential treatment to a > religious group called the Praying Parents. In the > past, this religious group was given nearly > unfettered access to students and faculty to promote > Christianity and prayer. In finding that these > activities violated the First Amendment, the Court > found that the effect of the group's predominant > religious purpose was to advance Christianity at > Lakeview. > > The school administration apparently agreed with the > group's purpose and activities and did not properly > monitor and supervise their activities on school > property, and, by allowing these activities, the > school tacitly or overtly endorsed the group's > activities. By doing so the school became > excessively entangled with the group's religious > activities, and abandoned the school's > constitutional obligation to maintain strict > neutrality toward religion. > > The Court issued an injunction preventing any group > from being given preferential treatment and ordering > that all individuals and groups requesting access to > the school request permission and be treated > equally. The Court also admonished the school for > allowing teachers and administrators to be active > participants in religious activities at the school, > for displaying the Ten Commandments in the school > hallway and for allowing the distribution of > Gideon's Bibles to students. > > > > One reason I've been such a loyal member of the ACLU > for so long is because I've always been impressed > with the way the ACLU sticks to its principles and > sticks to the truth. I've seen occasional errors > in ACLU press releases, but never the
Re: An Interesting Govt School Censorship Case
Although I'm not claiming the school was correct in this instance, there is a context to the case that the ADF press release completely leaves out. I used to be surprised at the dishonesty of these ADF press releases, but now I see them as puzzles where the challenge is to find the actual facts. From this press release, for example, you'd never know that the ACLU successfully challenged several practices in this school district that violated the Establishment Clause. The closest the press release comes to revealing that information is the two sentence paragraph: "The American Civil Liberties Union previously sued the school to stop it from recognizing such events, including “See You at the Pole” and the National Day of Prayer. In May 2008, _a federal judge refused to grant the ACLU’s request_ (http://www.telladf.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4538) ." Now, if you follow that link, it leads to _an ADF page_ (http://www.telladf.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4538) that, again, never mentions the school's Establishment Clause violations and describes the May 2008 result like this: "“This is a win for religious freedom and, if not a total loss for the ACLU, certainly a hollow, shallow victory." Even worse, that ADF page provides _a link to the ACLU complaint that starts on page 19_ (www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WilsonReliefRequest.pdf) , again cutting out the most pertinent facts. Similarly, _the link to the judge's decision_ (www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WilsonOrder.pdf) on that page leads to another ADF page that includes only the order, cutting out the memorandum describing in detail the school's Establishment Clause violations. The full judge's decision is included in the May 30, 2008, ACLU press release on the Wilson County case at: _http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/35742prs20080530.html_ (http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/35742prs20080530.html) Here are five pertinent paragraphs: The lawsuit, Doe v. Wilson County School System, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) charged that a variety of religious activities occurring at Lakeview Elementary School in Mt. Juliet, including praying during school hours by a group of parents who then distributed fliers in classrooms informing individual students they had been prayed for, were unconstitutional. "In a strongly worded 59-page decision, the Judge ruled that school officials were engaged in a systematic pattern of religious violations and that the school supported and tolerated religious activities taking place on its campus," said Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-TN Executive Director. After nearly two years of litigation, the Court ruled that Lakeview Elementary School administrators can not continue to give preferential treatment to a religious group called the Praying Parents. In the past, this religious group was given nearly unfettered access to students and faculty to promote Christianity and prayer. In finding that these activities violated the First Amendment, the Court found that the effect of the group's predominant religious purpose was to advance Christianity at Lakeview. The school administration apparently agreed with the group's purpose and activities and did not properly monitor and supervise their activities on school property, and, by allowing these activities, the school tacitly or overtly endorsed the group's activities. By doing so the school became excessively entangled with the group's religious activities, and abandoned the school's constitutional obligation to maintain strict neutrality toward religion. The Court issued an injunction preventing any group from being given preferential treatment and ordering that all individuals and groups requesting access to the school request permission and be treated equally. The Court also admonished the school for allowing teachers and administrators to be active participants in religious activities at the school, for displaying the Ten Commandments in the school hallway and for allowing the distribution of Gideon's Bibles to students. One reason I've been such a loyal member of the ACLU for so long is because I've always been impressed with the way the ACLU sticks to its principles and sticks to the truth. I've seen occasional errors in ACLU press releases, but never the dishonesty with the facts that I habitually find in these ADF ones. Ironically, this press release includes an accusation about "the ACLU’s long-term record of fear, intimidation, and disinformation." What a big lie! Allen Asch (full disclosure: although I am speaking only for myself, I currently serve on the board of the ACLU of Northern California) In a message dated 3/3/2009 4:39:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com writes: This is a very interesting recent case. A good one for class discussion. Here is the
