Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.Stick up for the first amendment and conservative activism!
Rock on Tyler Whitney!
What do you expect in the government controlled socialized school system, run by the NEA and its socialist members. Teachers in public schools are 95% democrats and socialists. Scum in my book. HOME SCHOOL!
Excellent!
It is important that the public schools continue to exercise unjustifiable and arbitrary authority. Otherwise, they might preserve a sliver of legitimacy.
Well, I'm not sure that the school cannot block distribution on non-school-sponsored publications. Many do have such rules.
Now, here's the thing: Suppose this conservative paper gets to distribute on campus. That would instantly mean that any other student-published publication could also be distributed in the same way. Any other student-published publication. Let's see what publications might crop up:
The GLBT Times
The Pro-Choice News
Muslim Student's Gazette
The Liberal Post
The reason that some schools prohibit distribution of all student-published, but not school-sponsored publications is that, once the door is opened, any group of students can distribute whatever publications they wish.
Bump for Tyler and the First Amendment!
Since the story at "State News" that you provide the link to is a bit different from the story you posted, can you tell us who the actual author of the story you posted is? Assuming the author is Tyler Whitney, I would also then assume this is a press release. I would also be interested in an actual quote from Superintendent Dave Chapin. If he did actually say that he considers conservative views disruptive, quoting his words would seem to be an important way to back up your claims.
Superintendent David Chapin said the problems lie not in the content of the newspaper, but in the process. He said board policies require asking the principal for permission to distribute the publication and allowing him or her to review it before it is distributed...
"It needed to be reviewed," he said.
Tyler, I would like to support you in this effort, but the school does have a right to review something before it is distributed on campus. Now, if leftist views are allowed, and your POV is stopped then that is different.
But keep trying and to quote Kris Kristofferson:
"Proud Ecofacist for $ 4.00 gasoline"
Done, kiddo, with the utmost respect for your efforts.
My generation will soon turn the world over to yours, and it makes an old man proud to see conservative youngsters like yourself who are willing to fight the good fight.
Keep fighting but, remember, unlike our liberal antagonists, we've learned through decades of being a being a minority party relentlessly attacked by a blathering media that the TRUTH is our most lethal weapon. Please be respectful protestors . . . but protest your asses off. LOL.
The Liberals can't figure out why the Conservative Movement is routing them. They have massive protests and cursing celebrities . . . we have dedicated, respectful citizens who know how to get things done instead of whine about things gone wrong.
Again, I'm proud of you and the rest of the youngsters at your school.
How very informative. So I guess we know what 'flavor' the instruction in THAT school is, don't we?
Here's another example of why high school as we know it is a doomed institution. We have been discussing inexpensive ways to fast track kids through high school to avoid the liberal agenda and other idiocies such as this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1315730/posts?page=84#84
Unfortunately my thread title was not well thought out, because some parents might instinctively skip over it due to attached stigma, whether real or imagined.
"Dr. Chapin informed them that he considers conservative views disruptive."
This guy is an idiot and he's going to be sued up the wazoo.
(1) drop association with john birch society (defensive maneuver)
(2) get a court order to force the principal and the district to allow 1A expression on campus, citing the U.S. Supreme Court case Tinker v Des Moines School District, 393 US 503 (1969):
http://www.landmarkcases.org/tinker/home.html
From the ruling:
. . . First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. . . .
. . . The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes. . . .
. . . On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to "pure speech"
. . . In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained . . .
. . . the record fails to yield evidence that the school authorities had reason to anticipate that the wearing of the armbands would substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students . . . [and] the school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. . . .
It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance . . . Instead, a particular symbol - black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation's involvement in Vietnam - was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible. In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. . . .
Typically the last stand of a school or college is to label free speech "disruptive." You know you have them cornered
if they come out swinging with this one.
I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV... ;-)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Woah!!! I live about a short walk from there (im a university student).
I'm suprised the "State News" even put this article in the newspaper. Generally, its filled with the BS opinons of the liberal "elite". I only get it for the crossword :) Let me see if I can email this guy. Fight the good fight.
contact these two groups IMMEDIATELY: PJI first.
Pacific Justice Institute, http://pji.org/
Gateways to Better Education, www.GTBE.org
That was the policy of my high school when I went to school many many moons ago. It may have nothing to do with it being a conservative paper but rather a desire to not allow unauthorized printed materials distributed on campus. If this rule has been in place for a long time and if other papers have been withheld for the same reason I can't really fault the administration. Now, if they just made the rule up in response to this particular paper then there is an issue. A little history on this would be helpful.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.