Not really that hard to “balance”
Posted on January 21, 2007
Fox News has a column from Jamie Colby who recently covered the story of a group of pro-life kids represented by the Alliance Defense Fund who were told that they were not allowed to express a pro-life view in their schools.
Fox News: Children and Choice
I cannot recall the last time I was this conflicted as an attorney, over our need to balance constitutional rights in this country. In this case, the issue is freedom of speech, and the situation has the potential to both help and hurt our kids.
I’ve just returned from Gowana Middle School, in New York’s Shenendehowa School District. I interviewed students who attempted to speak out against abortion, as part of the national day of silent protest organized by Stand True - Christ Centered Pro-life.
Students ranging from ages 13 to 16 prepared pamphlets, made descriptive T-shirts, and placed duct tape, with the word LIFE written on it, over their mouths.
The pamphlets and T-shirts were made at their homes, on their own time, and with their own money. They’ve since received both support and representation by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a not-for-profit organization, with a mission to “defend the right to hear and speak the truth through strategy, training, funding and litigation.â€
On the school bus and at school, the students silently distributed their pro-life brochures giving them out to any interested middle school student — they range in age from 10-year-old 6th graders to 13-year-old 8th graders. The pamphlets detail how many fetuses are aborted each year. The student-made pamphlet goes on to say that these “Americans” are not only silenced, but also killed.
Where’s the “conflict?” ADF is working on at least five cases where Stand True students were shut down. I have confirmed that at least one of the high schools where students’ rights were squashed conducts seminars in which Planned Parenthood is one of the presenters. This school also hosts a “gay-straight alliance” club as well as having an extensive sex-ed curriculum. The student I spoke to has also witnessed Iraq war protesting and other demonstrations that would be deemed controversial for kids in school. Of course this young lady I spoke to was singled out for censorship in this Deep Blue State government propaganda mill because the school bureaucrats just didn’t like what she had to say.
It’s obvious that these kids were shut down purely due to their viewpoint, not because they were expressing a political position or were presenting material that kids of a certain age are unprepared to hear. If kids can hear from Planned Parenthood and can learn to put a condom on a cucumber, they are ready to hear that abortion kills. Their rights were clearly violated.
Thankfully, we have ADF standing in the gap and protecting the rights of these students.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Abortion, Activist Judges, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “Not really that hard to “balance””
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
You say: “It’s obvious that these kids were shut down purely due to their viewpoint, not because they were expressing a political position or were presenting material that kids of a certain age are unprepared to hear.”
Those moronic lines made me laugh. I don’t know many 20-year-olds–let alone 13-year-olds–who understand the social and political issues surrounding abortion, so to involve these kids in “right-to-life” politics and to co-opt them in the distribution of anti-abortion propaganda is absurd. Moreover, the issue of First Amendment rights in this story is raised not to serve the interests of the pupils distributing the fliers, but rather to serve the political interests of the adults behind the campaign.
Henry this can also be said about the anti war protests and gay-straight alliance†day my question is that the article says this was “organized by Stand True - Christ Centered Pro-life”. Are they being silenced because this is backed by a religious organization?
“Those moronic lines made me laugh. I don’t know many 20-year-olds–let alone 13-year-olds–who understand the social and political issues surrounding abortion, so to involve these kids in “right-to-life†politics and to co-opt them in the distribution of anti-abortion propaganda is absurd. Moreover, the issue of First Amendment rights in this story is raised not to serve the interests of the pupils distributing the fliers, but rather to serve the political interests of the adults behind the campaign.”
The person who seems to be having trouble understanding is you Henry. You must not have read the rest of my post about what IS allowed in these schools. That context makes you argument devoid of a real point.
I bet you support the full panoply of sex ed courses and “fisting” demonstrations, yet have a problem with kids, who ON THEIR OWN have decided that killing babies is wrong and would like to share that “no duh” proposition with other. I guess you think the default position that everyone “naturally” holds is that it’s OK to slaughter 1/3 of a generation until some evil adults pollute young minds with different conclusions. Actually, none of this matters — the fact is, the First Amendment is sacrosanct and whether YOU have decided a topic is appropriate or not doesn’t matter one little bit. Imagine the Constitution was dependent on whether Henry thinks it should apply or not.
“…understand the social and political issues surrounding abortion”
Henry, you know, it is possible that kids don’t like the practice of dismembering tiny human beings with out being exposed to college profressors like Peter Singer and sanctimonious web-surfers like you. I guess you think that those 20 year-olds you think “aren’t ready” to discuss these issues should be shut down too. Henry, I think you should be stopped from talking about the First Amendment, because obviously, you don’t understand the social and political (and legal) issues surrounding free speech.
It’s pretty disturbing that, to you, human life is only valuable as the political end one life or another serves.
That’s “obvious”?
It may be true the administrators acted improperly at one or more of these schools, but there’s nothing inherently obvious about it. When the “sword geek” incident was discussed last week, we agreed that public schools aren’t an open forum for free speech.
In order to support your assertion, you must examine the administrations’ stated reasons for stopping the protests and determine whether or not their reasons are consistent with their policies and past actions.
In order to support your assertion, you must examine the administrations’ stated reasons for stopping the protests and determine whether or not their reasons are consistent with their policies and past actions.
Their policies and past actions involving the other 4 issues make it painfully obvious that we are dealing with viewpoint discrimination Jeff, and whether or not schools are an open forum for free speech, if they allow free expression of the other 4 viewpoints, they need to allow the viewpoint of these students.
If it’s “painfully obvious”, you should have no problem citing the relevant policies and precedents. The article, which is actually an opinion column, doesn’t go into that kind of detail. Neither have you or Glib.
BTW, it’s good to hear from you, Lobo. I hope you had a nice Christmas.
If it’s “painfully obviousâ€, you should have no problem citing the relevant policies and precedents.
The administration has previously allowed others to engage in peaceful forms of expression, regardless of controversy. In the past, the middle school students have been allowed to distribute literature and wear clothing with questionable statements.
“Historically, [Gowana] students have worn shirts ridiculing the president, ridiculing the war in Iraq and poking fun at religious beliefs,” Marcelle told WND. “She can’t just determine that Roe. v. Wade and the country’s abortion policy are off limits.”
WorldNetDaily
_________________________
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist.
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272-273, and n. 13
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592-593
I had a great Christmas, thanks. I trust you did as well?
Jeff, you just set yourself up don’t you? I’ll serve it to you on a platter. Read up and then admit your error:
On Oct. 24, Scott Fish and other students attempted to communicate a pro-life message to their classmates through the use of message-bearing T-shirts, armbands, leaflets, and symbolic expression. The school principal censored Fish and the other students because their message might make students “uncomfortable†and allegedly violates the so-called “separation of church and state.â€
The principal denied Fish his constitutional rights even after repeated meetings wherein Fish petitioned for relief from the censorship. After ADF attorneys filed suit on Fish’s behalf, school officials promptly agreed to permit student speech through pro-life clothing and leafleting outside of class. The court today ratified this agreement.
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/FishComplaint.pdf
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3984
The student’s mother phoned the office of Shenendehowa Central School District’s superintendent at least a week before the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity in October and spoke with a representative about her son’s plans in connection with the event. School officials never informed the mother that her son’s participation would violate any school or district policy.
Yet on Oct. 24, 2006 the school principal told the student to turn his pro-life shirt inside out and cease distribution of fliers. The principal allegedly stated, “Students shouldn’t be thinking about issues like that at your age.†In a school-wide announcement, the principal demanded that all students who received a flier forfeit them to school officials. School officials had previously permitted students to communicate freely on other controversial issues.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3986
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MGComplaint.pdf
On Oct. 25, Sarah had actually obtained permission to distribute fliers from her assistant principal, but later Sarah’s principal told her to cease flier distribution, vaguely asserting that the message was controversial and “might start a fight.†The principal also told Hollen that even outside of class she must remove a piece of tape across her mouth that read, “Ask Me Why I’m Not Talking,†despite the fact that the school had allowed similar expression by other students.
The principal denied that the assistant principal’s approval had taken place, yet she stated that fliers require approval two weeks prior to their distribution, in direct contradiction to the school board’s current policy.
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SHComplaint.pdf
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3982
On Oct. 24, Raker wore pro-life clothing and distributed postcard-size fliers in support of the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. The following day, he was pulled from class by Millbrook High School’s principal and told that his literature distribution would no longer be permitted because other students might object or consider the materials to be religious in nature. The principal also threatened to suppress Raker’s pro-life clothing and expressed doubt about the propriety of Raker’s desire to start a pro-life student club (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3926).
A letter from school official J. Richard Plaugher informed Raker about a policy, which had not been circulated to students or parents, that requires pre-approval of literature distribution before and after school and bans literature distribution even at lunch time. The policy contains no standards governing the approval process.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3960
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/RakerComplaint.pdf
According to school policy, students and student groups are allowed to distribute and post literature in connection with their activities after obtaining permission from school officials. However, the officials told Hilary Humphrey and other pro-life students they would not be allowed to promote the event, which occurs Oct. 24, because the officials considered the materials to be “inflammatory.â€
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3883
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HumphreyLetter.pdf
Sense a pattern Jeff? Sounds like you’ve been punk’s again. This research was easy to do. I wonder why you shot your mouth off without digging juuuuuust a little.
Glib: You don’t get it. 10-year-olds don’t understand
what it means to be “pro-life,” whatever that means. They
certainly don’t understand the social factors that drive
some adults to seek abortions. Nor do they understand the
First Amendment and the political implications of what
they’re doing. These kids are being used by the more
politicallly sophisticated adults behind the silly
campaign. That’s all I was saying. Your rumbling, hazy
response proves that you’re being driven not by reason but
by arrogant passion.
Set myself up for what? Shot my mouth off about what?
All I said was that neither you, nor the article supported your assertion. I didn’t do the digging, because it’s not my responsibility to support your assertions. You’ve offered a number of documents, so now I’ll review them and comment further tonight. If you’re assessment is justified, I will have no problem saying so.
I happen to be pro-choice, but I’m pro-1st amendment first and foremost.
“I didn’t do the digging, because it’s not my responsibility to support your assertions.”
So it’s not your responsibility to come with any facts to a discussion in which you hold strong views?
The fact is Jeff, this is a blog. I will not write a fully referenced dissertation every time I post. But rest assured that when I post something, I have done my homework. The kind of “detail” you demand every time we engage is a level of detail you rarely offer.
That’s just it, though. I don’t have strong views on these incidents. Until you posted comment #9, I knew nothing substantial about them. As I become knowledgeable on the subject, I may start making assertions, but until then, I’m just asking questions.
Of course, you’re free to say as little or as much as you’d like. If your intent is to do more than just preach to the choir, though, you need to provide at least some degree of support for your assertions. Since you were doing your homework anyways, it doesn’t seem like it would have been much of a burden to include at least some of the content of comment #9 in your main post.
That’s just because you make at least ten assertions for every one that I put forward. More often than not, we’re just discussing a claim that you made. But when I do make an assertion, I’m prepared to back it up if someone disputes it.
My understanding when I was in school was that the Bill of Rights didn’t aply to me until I was 18 years-old. I would hope that were these students peacefully passing out inflammatory fliers proclaiming the importance of white supremacy in America, you would condemn these actions. You cited sex-education, “fisting” demonstrations, and gay-straight alliance (GSA), as examples of possibly inflammatory groups already in existence in these schools. While I fail to recall my Phys. Ed. coach giving us fisting demonstrations, he did a woeful job of spouting erroneous facts about contraception and stages of pregnancy. As for the GSA, whether you find homosexuality wrong, a sin, evil, etc. or not, I think having groups like the GSA help to raise awareness and prevent repeats of incidents like Matthew Shepard.
“That’s just it, though. I don’t have strong views on these incidents.”
Why comment then, Jeff?
CIS:
“I would hope that were these students peacefully passing out inflammatory fliers proclaiming the importance of white supremacy in America, you would condemn these actions.”
What a ridiculous comparison.
“As for the GSA, whether you find homosexuality wrong, a sin, evil, etc. or not, I think having groups like the GSA help to raise awareness and prevent repeats of incidents like Matthew Shepard.”
Yes prevention of murder and robbery is an admirable goal, no one would dispute that. Whether one “find[s] homosexuality wrong,” doesn’t matter. The FACT is that it is a controversial topic that is permitted to be promoted in schools. Likewise, abortion is a controversial topic. If the promotion of aberrant sexual behavior is “appropriate” in school, then opposition to killing unborn humans is as well. Tracking better now?
I wanted to know more about your position.