Posted on 12/21/2004 1:26:51 PM PST by Libloather
ROTFLAICGU
Have a joyous and peaceful Christmas.
And the same to you and yours!
Just marking my spot so I won't miss the next arrogant post that's sure to come your way.
And here it is!
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/walz_v_egg_harbor.htm
What's it all about, Godzilla Eats Las Vegas?
I've seen some of these messages that I can figure out, but I am stumped this time....
Couldn't get the link to work. As far as Vegas goes, its hard to pick the show girls out of one's teeth.
ROTFLAICGU
Rolling on the floor laughing and I can't get up.
/sarcasm
Can't magine why you don't want to look at the link.
Good luck.
Please read response more carefully. I tried and got the infamous page not available message.
That's hard to believe as it works like a hose for me.
I'll just tell you what it is. It is a case from the Third Circuit Court with nearly identical facts to this one, Walz v. Egg Harbor Township Board of Education argued ans filed in 2003, mere months before this came to pass in Plano. It was settled in favor of the School Board; elementary school children may not hand out religious messages inside the classrooms. They must use other areas of the school.
Are you inferring that I am not telling the truth? However, from the further details you provided below I was able to google and find alternative sources to the article.
It was settled in favor of the School Board; elementary school children may not hand out religious messages inside the classrooms. They must use other areas of the school.
Case has gone on appeal to the US Supreme court. Furthermore the case was more limited to kindergarten aged children rather than a blanket elementary ban. The case Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield upheld the right of students to present items like candy canes and gifts with religious messages within the school and not specified areas.
Pending the appeal of Walz v Egg Harbor, the Supreme court has been clear on First amendment rights of students. ”Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Supreme Court has stated that a student’s free-speech rights apply “when [they are] in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours. . . .” The Supreme Court has warned school officials not to trample the rights of students in public schools, stating: ” State-operated schools may not be enclaves for 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. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligation to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) for details.
I suspect that in the light of historic Supreme Court rulings, the Third District's ruling will be overturned.
Are you inferring that I am not telling the truth?
No, you are inferring it. You may want to look up the difference between implication and inference.
From the Third Circuit decision:
While school students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), a school's need to control student behavior will necessarily result in limitations on student speech. (3) A quiet reading period necessarily requires silence, and a "show and tell" exercise may be restricted to age-appropriate items to prevent unsuitable discussions in a kindergarten classroom. E.g., Walker-Serrano, 325 F.3d at 416 ("[A]ny analysis of the students' rights to expression on the one hand, and of schools' need to control behavior and foster an environment conducive to learning on the other, must necessarily take into account the age and maturity of the student.").
No, I was stating simple fact.
From the Third Circuit decision:
I fail to find where this bans bringing red and green paper plates to a Christmas party or bans the presentation of candy canes with religious notes attached. Both are in their proper context according to Tinker and do not fall within the exemptions described. Plus they are fully allowable under existing court decisions.
So you point is???????? Do you find candy canes and red/green paper plates and napkins THAT intimidating?
"No, I was stating simple fact."
No , you deductively arrived at a meaning (" I am not telling the truth") of your own making from what I wrote.
"I fail to find where this bans bringing red and green paper plates to a Christmas party "
I'm going to leave this part out because 1)that is part of the DOJ complaint, not the suit and 2)because I , (and I'm willing to bet many other parents here in Plano) are in physical possession of documentary evidence proving that at least some parts of the complaint are spurious.
"or bans the presentation of candy canes with religious notes attached. "
This is relevant to our discussion. You cite Tinker, which reads, "when [they are] in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours. . . .”
It does not specifically cite the classroom, although it specifically cites the cafeteria and playing field and vaguely refers to the campus.
This case is about prosetylizing specifically inside the classroom during a structured clasroom activity. If you are familiar with the facts of the case, you would know that. The Plaintiff was offered the same venue that is offered to everyone else in the school for handing out personal messages such as his; there are free speech areas designated ON CAMPUS for exctly this purpose. But he sued for the power to prosetylize INSIDE A CLASSROOM, during a structured, board sanctioned activity.
Tinker does not address that.
Wow, then go talk to the ACLU. Question if this 'evidence' would stand in a court of law.
This is relevant to our discussion. You cite Tinker, which reads, "when [they are] in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours. . . .”
It does not specifically cite the classroom, although it specifically cites the cafeteria and playing field and vaguely refers to the campus.
Sorry, the paper plate/napkin incident IS relevant because it reflects the underlying hostility towards Christianity and / or the schools ignorance.
You appear have problem with context of Tinker. Nothing within the Tinker excerpt indicates that there is a limitation to only those areas. The clear context is that it is inclusive. By having a classroom party, it opens itself up to the full application of Tinker as they are appropriate. The term "Campus" is inclusive. Furthermore you conveniently ignore the case Westfield High School L.I.F.E. Club v. City of Westfield upheld the right of students to present items like candy canes and gifts with religious messages within the school and not specified areas. The combination of the two decisions make it clear that in a classroom Christmas party setting, a candy cane with a religious note attached is a legitimate form of expression protected by the constitution. The recipient's is more than free to remove the note and not read it. IF the school compelled them to read it, then there would be a problem.
The Plaintiff was offered the same venue that is offered to everyone else in the school for handing out personal messages such as his; there are free speech areas designated ON CAMPUS for exctly this purpose. But he sued for the power to prosetylize INSIDE A CLASSROOM, during a structured, board sanctioned activity.
If the venue is unconstitional, the parent(s) have every right to action. A classroom Christmas party is not 'structured' in the sense that anything is being taught and as such such items like the candy cane are permissible. Furthermore, if courts have said that it is permissible for Christmas songs with religious content to be sung and taught within a definitely 'structured' context, a candy cane (or red/green paper plate/napkins) are suitable in the context of a Christmas Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.