Novato district loses court fight over anti-illegal immigrant piece

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/19/8 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal today by Novato school district officials who confiscated a student newspaper because of an editorial urging that any Latino who couldn't speak English be detained as a probable illegal immigrant.

A state appeals court in San Francisco ruled last May that the Novato Unified School District had violated the rights of Andrew Smith, who wrote the editorial in the Novato High School newspaper, the Buzz, in November 2001. The court relied on a California law that protects free expression by public school students more strongly than the constitutional rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The district appealed unsuccessfully to the state Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied review today without comment.

Smith, who was then 18, wrote in his editorial that immigrants should stay out of the country if they can't go to the trouble of becoming citizens. He added that authorities "should treat these people the way cops would treat a suspected criminal. If a person looks suspicious then just stop them and ask a few questions, and if they answer, 'Que?' detain them."

After some students and parents protested, school district officials pulled remaining copies of the newspaper out of circulation and sent a letter to parents saying the editorial shouldn't have been published.

Smith and his father, Dale Smith, sued in Marin County Superior Court, claiming that the district had illegally censored the piece and subjected the younger Smith to public reprimand for expressing unpopular positions.

Smith's lawsuit was dismissed by a Superior Court judge, who noted that the editorial had been published and that the student hadn't been disciplined. But the First District Court of Appeal said the district had violated Smith's rights by confiscating the paper and sending the message to parents.

[SmithL]

A victory for Free Speech against Political Correctness.

More, from last year: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838039/posts

[rocksblues]

Slow but sure. We shall overcome.

[skeeter]

The California educational system is a criminal syndicate & will do as they please in spite of what the SCOTUS says.

But this is welcome news anyway.

[wastedyears]

Good man

Somebody has to say these things.

[baa39]

Wow, I can’t believe they sent a letter to parents! It’s bad enough to repress the student newspaper, that sort of thing we’ve come to expect, but to humiliate the young man by such a cowardly abuse of power, that seems really despotic.

[rb22982]

Bet the ACLU didn’t help the student with this either.

[mbj]

I’m glad this was overturned and the free-speech/freedom of press rights were protected in this case.

However, I do not necessarily agree with everything in the article: since when do we decide that people look suspicious, based on their /appearance/ or race instead of deciding based on their /behavior/ ?

Tejanos fought in the Alamo too. I don’t want those folks stopped simply because they might look like illegal immigrants. That’s not political correctness, that’s just not judging based on appearance.

[ARE SOLE]

Tejanos fought in the Alamo too. I don’t want those folks stopped simply because they might look like illegal immigrants.

I totally agree. Illegals on the other hand, can be dealt with through law routine enforcement activity such as background checks of arrested individuals, discovery of ssn fraud, presentation of false identification documents when applying for work or state & federal benefits.

In addition visa over stayers employment privileges and drivers licenses can be made to expire when the visa does. Folks whose visa expires without evidence of their departure from our country should be tagged as unhirable and have a warrant generated for their arrest.

There are many approaches that do not trample on citizens and legal immigrants rights that are not fully used to our advantage

Regards

[supercat]

However, I do not necessarily agree with everything in the article: since when do we decide that people look suspicious, based on their /appearance/ or race instead of deciding based on their /behavior/ ?

I believe any foreign nationals in the U.S. legally are supposed to keep identification documents with them at all times are they not? And citizens, with few relatively exceptions, are supposed to speak English. What fraction of people who can neither produce identification documents nor speak English are nonetheless here legally?