ACLU Abusing Poor Christians Again

[Durandal]

I think that this would be somewhat analogous to just having a student's basic information profile in each yearbook with a "Religious Beliefs" category. Something like ...

Name: Joe Dirt
Birthdate: 1/1/1986
Religion: Christian

In this case, the girl's profile was for informational purposes. Though, including the Bible verse may have been stretching it (but it's not all that different from someone else putting in a quote from his favorite baseball player or something). But if she just wanted to say that Jesus was a big part of her life and all that other crap, I don't see a problem with it.

This kind of thing would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. If a student wants to include the verse from the Bible where Jesus says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," I don't see a problem. If he wants to include a verse from Leviticus, though, then there are problems.

[Darth Wong]

That is, presuming they have jurisdiction, which is what puzzles me about this case.

They didn't. I read the article again, and not only did she pay for the yearbook (which means it was not paid for by the state), but it never even went to court. I failed to notice the first time around that the case was settled out of court, most likely by a school board that didn't want a costly court case on its hands.

In short, the ACLU bullied the school board into acquiescing to its demands with the threat of costly court action, so it never went to court and it was never resolved whether they even had a case. It is entirely possible that they cynically undertook this crusade as a PR exercise, to deflect criticism from Christians about their supposedly "anti-Christian agenda".

[Durandal]

They didn't. I read the article again, and not only did she pay for the yearbook (which means it was not paid for by the state), but it never even went to court. I failed to notice the first time around that the case was settled out of court, most likely by a school board that didn't want a costly court case on its hands.

The actual publishing costs were probably part of the school's budget, unless the yearbook staff relied entirely on donations from parents and alumni, which I doubt. If the publishing costs are paid for by the state, then the courts can assume jurisdiction.

In short, the ACLU bullied the school board into acquiescing to its demands with the threat of costly court action, so it never went to court and it was never resolved whether they even had a case. It is entirely possible that they cynically undertook this crusade as a PR exercise, to deflect criticism from Christians about their supposedly "anti-Christian agenda".

Possible, though it is consistent with their tendency to side with the little guy.

[Darksider]

Holy shit!

That's MY high school!!
The one i'm posting from right now......

[Sharp-kun]

The actual publishing costs were probably part of the school's budget, unless the yearbook staff relied entirely on donations from parents and alumni, which I doubt. If the publishing costs are paid for by the state, then the courts can assume jurisdiction.

I'm not sure how it is in the US, but for our yearbook, it was entirely funded by the students. We raised the money to have it published, and we did all the design work etc. Teaching staff did nothing but give advice, and submit a few articles.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You have got to be kidding me...

[Alyeska]

Read the article again. The yearbooks were printed two years ago, making new copies for everyone would necessity a fairly large mailing campaign to catch all the graduates, and it's possible that the original prints of the book have been discarded. Only a handful of students would care about the ruling anyway.

Irrelevent. The school wrongfully censored her speech and should be forced to correct the books properly by having the book complete, not a sticker. Furthermore they should be forced to correct all books. That is the price of their mistake.

[Rogue 9]

There are undoubtedly rules, so why is it a violation of her First Amendment rights to be disallowed from using that spot for religious stuff, when it's almost certain that something like what I wrote above would not be allowed?

Because what you wrote above would fall under hate speech, or at least come under the school's right to censor material harmful to the educational environment (ie general slams against most of the students; but if fundies were trying to convert him in school then the school should have done something about that as well). Just like a verse from Leviticus or most verses from Deuteronomy. The defense in any legal proceedings stemming from the censoring of that statement would rightly center on its status as hate speech, not "Well its religious so we get to remove it."

In short, the ACLU bullied the school board into acquiescing to its demands with the threat of costly court action

Yeah, that's pretty much their standard operating procedure. I'll note that you don't get pissy about it when they do it to groups you don't care about. If they made some town council somewhere remove a Ten Commandments monument through exactly the same method, I expect you'd cheer.

[Darth Wong]

Because what you wrote above would fall under hate speech

Which is irrelevant when dealing with First Amendment issues, as you Americans have pointed out to me many times. Canada has hate speech laws, but the US does not distinguish between hate speech and any other kind of speech. Yet again, I must point out that if this is prosecuted as a First Amendment issue (which it supposedly was), then it's irrelevant whether it's hate speech.

Irrelevent. The school wrongfully censored her speech and should be forced to correct the books properly by having the book complete, not a sticker. Furthermore they should be forced to correct all books. That is the price of their mistake.

I do like the way you emphatically state that your earlier argument was absolutely correct without making the slightest attempt to explain why.

[Alyeska]

The school fucked up and edited her quote out.

They have to fix the mistake they made. Should they

A: Use a cheap sticker that doesn't replace the actual mistake they made and only fix the yearbooks on file

or

B: Be forced to order a reprint on the books with the corrected quote put in and booked offered to everyone who bought one

Right now the school is attempting a token fix at best. It doesn't change the fact that they printed hundreds of books that will never be fixed and thus their arogance will never really be removed. They won. They kept the "contraversial" quote she had out of the hands of the public and all they have to do is put a sticker in their copy which never sees the light of day.

[Darth Wong]

They have to fix the mistake they made.

Prove it. This was an out of court settlement, most likely because they wanted to avoid court action. It is entirely conceivable that they could have won in court, since the First Amendment does not guarantee free speech in yearbooks. What part of "justify your claim" do you not understand?

[RedImperator]

Because what you wrote above would fall under hate speech

Which is irrelevant when dealing with First Amendment issues, as you Americans have pointed out to me many times. Canada has hate speech laws, but the US does not distinguish between hate speech and any other kind of speech. Yet again, I must point out that if this is prosecuted as a First Amendment issue (which it supposedly was), then it's irrelevant whether it's hate speech.

The state cannot restrict "hate speech", but schools can, even though they're agents of the state, for the reasons I gave in my previous post. In general, students' constitutional rights are limited while they're subject to a school's authority. It's still a First Amendment issue even if the courts acknowledge that the school has broader power to restrict speech. It should be noted that a school probably couldn't ban hate speech per se, but that hate speech would be included in a blanket ban on inflammatory speech. The courts have long ruled that schools' interest in keeping good order while providing an essential public service overrides a student's right to say anything he pleases on school time. The schools do not, however, have blanket authority to ban any speech they don't like, and any time religion comes up, they can assume the courts are going to tie their hands (which is why students can hold voluntary prayer meetings around the flagpole and students can refuse to say all or parts of the Pledge of Allegiance).

[Sharp-kun]

B: Be forced to order a reprint on the books with the corrected quote put in and booked offered to everyone who bought one

Is it feasable to do so? How many of the students who have bought a yearbook will be willing to change it, even at no cost, over a single quote? Can they even track down all those who bought one?
The money spent on reprinting could be better spent elsewhere.

[Darth Wong]

The state cannot restrict "hate speech", but schools can, even though they're agents of the state, for the reasons I gave in my previous post. In general, students' constitutional rights are limited while they're subject to a school's authority. It's still a First Amendment issue even if the courts acknowledge that the school has broader power to restrict speech. It should be noted that a school probably couldn't ban hate speech per se, but that hate speech would be included in a blanket ban on inflammatory speech.

And "inflammatory" is a term which is legally meaningless, since it relies upon the reaction of the listener rather than the speaker. The comment "blacks are of inferior intelligence" would not have been considered inflammatory in many places 100 years ago. In essence, you're saying that it falls down to the same "community standards" bullshit upon which federal obscenity laws are based.

The courts have long ruled that schools' interest in keeping good order while providing an essential public service overrides a student's right to say anything he pleases on school time. The schools do not, however, have blanket authority to ban any speech they don't like, and any time religion comes up, they can assume the courts are going to tie their hands (which is why students can hold voluntary prayer meetings around the flagpole and students can refuse to say all or parts of the Pledge of Allegiance).

Refusal to say something when ordered should not be equated to public demonstrations; one is passive, the other is active. It looks more to me like the First Amendment is simply interpreted with a bias toward religious activities, because that's how the "community standards" shake out.

[Durandal]

The actual publishing costs were probably part of the school's budget, unless the yearbook staff relied entirely on donations from parents and alumni, which I doubt. If the publishing costs are paid for by the state, then the courts can assume jurisdiction.

I'm not sure how it is in the US, but for our yearbook, it was entirely funded by the students. We raised the money to have it published, and we did all the design work etc. Teaching staff did nothing but give advice, and submit a few articles.

It depends on the school. If a school cuts the yearbook from its budget, then it must rely entirely on donations. But also remember that the Yearbook Staff is generally a school-endorsed activity, meaning that they can procure school facilities for their meetings and activities, and a faculty member is the "faculty overseer" or whatever of the organization.

[Rogue 9]

Refusal to say something when ordered should not be equated to public demonstrations; one is passive, the other is active.

Perhaps just a tad off the subject, but tell that to the Romans who executed Christians and Jews for not acknowledging the divinity of Caesar. I'm sure they'd have loved to know.

It looks more to me like the First Amendment is simply interpreted with a bias toward religious activities, because that's how the "community standards" shake out.

The consistent removal of Commandments and other religious monuments from public places seems to contradict that theory. The difference between the two is that one is a statement by the government (a public monument in a public place paid for with public money) and the other is a private statement by a private citizen.

[Darth Wong]

Refusal to say something when ordered should not be equated to public demonstrations; one is passive, the other is active.

Perhaps just a tad off the subject, but tell that to the Romans who executed Christians and Jews for not acknowledging the divinity of Caesar. I'm sure they'd have loved to know.

Ah, so you have successfully proven that we are more enlightened than the ancient Romans. Congratulations. Now try to think of something to say WHICH IS NOT A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FUCKING RED HERRING

It looks more to me like the First Amendment is simply interpreted with a bias toward religious activities, because that's how the "community standards" shake out.

The consistent removal of Commandments and other religious monuments from public places seems to contradict that theory.

Bullshit; such monuments are extraordinarily intrusive. However, things like "group prayer" in schools have been consistently allowed, even though it is pretty much common knowledge that "inflammatory" expressions of belief would not be allowed, even if they're strictly individual (hell, most schools have dress codes that object to sexual slogans on T-shirts).

The difference between the two is that one is a statement by the government (a public monument in a public place paid for with public money) and the other is a private statement by a private citizen.

See above.

[RedImperator]

The state cannot restrict "hate speech", but schools can, even though they're agents of the state, for the reasons I gave in my previous post. In general, students' constitutional rights are limited while they're subject to a school's authority. It's still a First Amendment issue even if the courts acknowledge that the school has broader power to restrict speech. It should be noted that a school probably couldn't ban hate speech per se, but that hate speech would be included in a blanket ban on inflammatory speech.

And "inflammatory" is a term which is legally meaningless, since it relies upon the reaction of the listener rather than the speaker. The comment "blacks are of inferior intelligence" would not have been considered inflammatory in many places 100 years ago. In essence, you're saying that it falls down to the same "community standards" bullshit upon which federal obscenity laws are based.

If you mean that the schools get to make a subjective decision on what constitutes allowable speech, then yes, you're right. There's no way around that because there's no objective way to define inflammatory speech. That happens in law sometimes. The schools have the right to make a judgement call, and the courts have the right to impose their own judgement if they disagree. In theory, everyone has a responsibility to be as objective as they can, which is about all you can do in 1st Amendment cases regarding where the boundary of allowable speech exists.

By the way, there are similar restrictions on freedom of expression in the real world, as well--so-called "fighting words", a general term for speech that creates a danger to the life and property of other people (shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is the most common example). The courts have forced local jurisdictions to define "fighting words" very narrowly, but it's still a subjective judgement on their part. If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears.

The difference between restricting fighting words outside among the general public and "inflammatory speech" in schools is that the state can't call something "fighting words" based solely on the idea behind the statement. For example, it's perfectly legal for me to stand in the middle of San Francisco and proclaim that all gays are going to hell for their wicked, sinful ways, no matter how many people that would piss off. If, however, I say all gays are going to hell and all God-fearing Christians should help send them there, that's incitement to riot and the city has the right to arrest me. The state is limited to banning speech where there's actual incitement to violence. Schools, on the other hand, have more leeway and CAN ban speech based on its content. This isn't the only area in which schools have greater power than the state in restricting the rights of students. Schools get special exceptions all over the place because their charges are minors, the school's powers are limited to school hours and school property, schools perform a vital public service, and because they have the power of in loco parentis.

I should add that it's more reasonable to determine what constitutes fighting words using community standards than it is to determine what constitutes obscenity. After all, a particular statement is only fighting words if it's likely to cause a public disturbance, and that depends heavily on who's around to hear it. And unlike obscenity, speech that causes a disruption in order causes objective harm.

Refusal to say something when ordered should not be equated to public demonstrations; one is passive, the other is active. It looks more to me like the First Amendment is simply interpreted with a bias toward religious activities, because that's how the "community standards" shake out.

Passive demonstration is still demonstration. At any rate, religion will always get extra consideration because it's protected by the free exercise clause as well as the free speech clause (and in many cases, the free assembly clause as well). Any attempt to restrict religious speech has TWO Constitutional hurdles, not one like most speech (and it's hard enough getting non-religious speech banned).

[PrinceofLowLight]

I recall a case a few years ago around here in which a huge stink was made over a student who put a quote from Hitler in her section in the yearbook. I think she was punished, but it ended up getting printed. I see no real difference in this case.

[Durandal]

It depends on the quote. If I was graduating high school this year and could put a quote in the yearbook, I'd put a quote in from Hermann Göering, the Nazi Reich-Marshall, when he was on trial in Nuremberg simply because it's appropriate for the current political climate in the United States.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

[DPDarkPrimus]

So what about the quote I'm annoyed about in my yearbook? The actual quote is:

It is only Chirtianity...that makes any existance valuable or even tolerable. - Horeance Bushell


I find it to be rather offensive. So should I complain?

[Durandal]

I'd probably complain. It's pure religious egocentrism with no redeeming value at all.

[DPDarkPrimus]

But what will be done about it, I wonder? Probably jack shit. I shall do so nonetheless.

[DPDarkPrimus]

So, I complained. I pointed out the quote to the teacher in charge of editing it, after I politely told him that it was offensive to me as a non-Christian, etc.

He said that I would have to take it up with the person who used the quote.

"But aren't you supposed to screen the quotes for things that are potentially offensive?" I said.

"Plenty of other people used Christian quotes." the teacher replied.

"Those are Bible quotes. There's a difference between professing one's faith and dissing everyone elses." I replied.

"Well, I didn't find it offensive." the teacher snapped, and walked away.

I had to bite my tongue, because I was about to shout out "Yeah, and I bet you're a Christian!"

[Gandalf]

Can you go over her head?