Bong Hits 4 Jesus
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5686493,00.html
http://www.denverpost.com/dining/ci_6760212
Here are the key sentences.
"Corder had not included those remarks during rehearsals.
"The lawsuit said Brewer would not give Corder her diploma until she included a sentence saying, "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Corder received her diploma after complying.
"Then, deviating from the 30-second speech that had been approved by the principal, she began speaking about "someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine."
"The district has a written policy titled "Student Expression Rights," according to the lawsuit. It prohibits expression that, among other things, is disruptive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous or threatens violence. It does not specifically prohibit religious speech, the lawsuit states. "
This has nothing to do with "honesty" unless Corder made an explicit promise not to state those words. The articles aren't clear on that point. Regardless, Corder felt that she was being honest to her beliefs and her obligation to perform according to a script seems contrary both to her own sense of integrity and to what education is-- where the articulation of independent thought needs the benediction of authority. Even her acknowledgent that she should not have said such things is irrelevant in the light of more important issues, such as censorship, the First Amendment, and the free speach rights of the students versus the right of the administration to control thsoe students.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court restricted student expression in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, but that was because it was assumed that the 14 foot banner referenced drug use-- a permissible restriction in the court's view. However, in the case above, Corder's speech didn't violate written policy. She only pricked the sensibilities of the principle and some of her listeners, which is what any good speech should do.
On First Amendment grounds, I think Corder is going to win. Also, as a matter of contract law, I think she will win, a contract consisting of offer ("you are entitled to give a speech under these conditions"), accceptance ("I will speak under these conditions"), and consideration ("I spoke under these conditions"), the absence of any leg of the triad voiding the contract. From Corder's view point, the pre-conditions were the written policy, with which she was in compliance, not the philosophical views of her listeners or even the approval of the principle of the speech. The school breached her contract to speak by imposing requirements extraneous to stated school policy. Given the breach of contract by the administration, I would say Corder was entitled to present her religious opinion.
As a First Amendment absolutist, I hope she does win, and this would also be true if a valedictorian someday intoned that "atheism was the hope of the world."
IMO, the school was wrong and Corder was right.
Are you an absolutist about all of the First Amendment, or just the free speech part of it?
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
The entire First Amendment without exception.
Then you should have no problems with the school principal curtailing the rights of the speaker, given that the "federal legislature" was not involved.
I have long wondered what a "free speech absolutist" might be. Certainly the founders did not intend that the Congress could never curtail speech. Madison, who wrote the Amendments, didn't. Never in our history has such an argument seriously been made, or recognized.
I was giving a summary statement of my view, which, more accurately is that the presumption must be given on the unfettered expression of speech in the absence of stronger countervailing presumptions. However, we are all aware that there is no absolute to free speach or anything else for that matter when weighed against issues of public safety, common sense and ethics, general decorum, and other concerns. We cannot yell "fire" in a theatre, for example, or slander with impunity.
Okay. So you don't recognize the First Amendment as imposing literal limits on government, nor "granting" literally the right to individual free speech. You are not a First Amendment "absolutist."
I concede the point. However, it seems like you were invoking an orginalist understanding of that clause. I'm not sure that what Madison had to say about the topic is especially relevant, although I think he did view the press and public sentiment as a chck on the other three branches-- a quasi branch of government. Nor do I think the state grants any such rights as such, although they can establish bounds, for example, in not inciting riots or spilling state secrets. The law is dynamic and fluid, subject to interpretation and application. However, as a matter of principle, the presumption as I've said before is to the absence of restrictions unless there is a compelling state interest. Stating a religous or a political opinion doesn't rise to that level, as the courts have ruled in the past.
The question I posed (and not just academic trivia, given the new composition of the SCOTUS, IMO) was whether the "rights" found in the First Amendment limit the states in their exercise of sovereignty? That is, where the fed legislature can't prohibit speech because of the First Amendment, can the state or local government? Can the local school principle? Or, for that matter, can the Executive Branch in the exercise of its powers, both enumerated or implied? These are serious questions, about to become even more on the "front burner", IMO. You've stated some magic words, as they apply to the Congress. Again, I ask: Why does the local school authority need show "compelling state interest" before it restricts speech?
I agree that this is going to become an increasingly significant issue. The answer lies in Amendment Ten, the so-called States' Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution grants power and also prevents certain powers as well. It makes no claim to enumerate all powers delegrated or prohibited, as in Amendment Nine: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thus, Congress may be silent on what kinds of speach are permissible and may also delegate to the states other kinds of restrictions on, say, libel law. However, it doesn't follow that the Misssissippi, for example, can invoke posse comitatus to close down all the broadcast stations and newspapers and require that everyone attends their Southern Baptist church of choice, as that would fall under a violation of the First Amendment. At the end of the day, the compelling state interest is the legitimacy of the constitution itself. This becomes especially true in today where the temptation to make the First Amendment a dead letter law may become compelling given our so-called war on terror where security trumps freedom.
Freedom is a fragile flower indeed.
Part of the role of the SCOTUS, IMOHO, is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The government should not be in the game of endorsing religion and for many of us, people proselytizing in government sponsored events is exactly that.
We need to achieve both goals-- protect minority rights while expanding the freedoms expressed in the First Amendment. John Stevens, in his dissent in the Morse v. Frederick case, states that "Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of counterveiling views." The problem here is a matter of interpretation. What you may see as proselytizing, I may see as a benign expression of an ideosyncratic point of view-- something that happens every day both inside the school and outside. If instead of a speech, a student had stated the same thing in a letter to the school newspaper, should it be censored on the same grounds? What if that student wore an armband protesting the war in Iraq or a button that said "Bush Rocks", could that student be suspended? I do agree that the government should not endorse religion, but I disagree that perceived efforts to proselytize in a government setting is a manifestation of the government's endorsement of religion. And I fear the imposition of a rule that prohibits such religious expression would lead to the government's supression of literary and political expressions.
But, if people being ushered (quite literally) unto adulthood cannot handle hearing a peer speak of her religious delusions, then they are in serious trouble.
I agree. The school recognizes those who are the first in their class and gives them a forum to mouth their platitudes or delusions. However, the school administrators must think the audience is hopelessly mentally weak to succumb to those few minutes of platitudes or delusions. If the teachers are doing their jobs, these are all battles that should have been fought well before graduation day. I hope we never reach that point of political correctness where we cannot have these intellectual battles in secular classrooms. I think it goes back to pedagogical assumptions. If you believe the best way to educate is to indoctrinate, then by all means teach them what to think -- only that which is good and true-- and quarantine them from folly, perhaps through home schooling. Alternatively, if you want to teach your children how to think, how to develop tough minds and confidence in reasoning and rationality, then give them opportunities to reason and to think for themselves.
(Channelling Professor Charles W. Kingsfield.)
Speak louder, Hart. Fill the room with your intelligence. What? Nothing? OK, here's a dime to call your mommy. Tell her you'll never make it as a 1L. Who makes these determinations? Who establishes these societal rules? The answer, class, is simply: the courts. Class dismissed.
http://www.denverpost.com/dining/ci_6760212
Here are the key sentences.
"Corder had not included those remarks during rehearsals.
"The lawsuit said Brewer would not give Corder her diploma until she included a sentence saying, "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Corder received her diploma after complying.
"Then, deviating from the 30-second speech that had been approved by the principal, she began speaking about "someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine."
"The district has a written policy titled "Student Expression Rights," according to the lawsuit. It prohibits expression that, among other things, is disruptive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous or threatens violence. It does not specifically prohibit religious speech, the lawsuit states. "
This has nothing to do with "honesty" unless Corder made an explicit promise not to state those words. The articles aren't clear on that point. Regardless, Corder felt that she was being honest to her beliefs and her obligation to perform according to a script seems contrary both to her own sense of integrity and to what education is-- where the articulation of independent thought needs the benediction of authority. Even her acknowledgent that she should not have said such things is irrelevant in the light of more important issues, such as censorship, the First Amendment, and the free speach rights of the students versus the right of the administration to control thsoe students.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court restricted student expression in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, but that was because it was assumed that the 14 foot banner referenced drug use-- a permissible restriction in the court's view. However, in the case above, Corder's speech didn't violate written policy. She only pricked the sensibilities of the principle and some of her listeners, which is what any good speech should do.
On First Amendment grounds, I think Corder is going to win. Also, as a matter of contract law, I think she will win, a contract consisting of offer ("you are entitled to give a speech under these conditions"), accceptance ("I will speak under these conditions"), and consideration ("I spoke under these conditions"), the absence of any leg of the triad voiding the contract. From Corder's view point, the pre-conditions were the written policy, with which she was in compliance, not the philosophical views of her listeners or even the approval of the principle of the speech. The school breached her contract to speak by imposing requirements extraneous to stated school policy. Given the breach of contract by the administration, I would say Corder was entitled to present her religious opinion.
As a First Amendment absolutist, I hope she does win, and this would also be true if a valedictorian someday intoned that "atheism was the hope of the world."
IMO, the school was wrong and Corder was right.
Are you an absolutist about all of the First Amendment, or just the free speech part of it?
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
The entire First Amendment without exception.
Then you should have no problems with the school principal curtailing the rights of the speaker, given that the "federal legislature" was not involved.
I have long wondered what a "free speech absolutist" might be. Certainly the founders did not intend that the Congress could never curtail speech. Madison, who wrote the Amendments, didn't. Never in our history has such an argument seriously been made, or recognized.
I was giving a summary statement of my view, which, more accurately is that the presumption must be given on the unfettered expression of speech in the absence of stronger countervailing presumptions. However, we are all aware that there is no absolute to free speach or anything else for that matter when weighed against issues of public safety, common sense and ethics, general decorum, and other concerns. We cannot yell "fire" in a theatre, for example, or slander with impunity.
Okay. So you don't recognize the First Amendment as imposing literal limits on government, nor "granting" literally the right to individual free speech. You are not a First Amendment "absolutist."
I concede the point. However, it seems like you were invoking an orginalist understanding of that clause. I'm not sure that what Madison had to say about the topic is especially relevant, although I think he did view the press and public sentiment as a chck on the other three branches-- a quasi branch of government. Nor do I think the state grants any such rights as such, although they can establish bounds, for example, in not inciting riots or spilling state secrets. The law is dynamic and fluid, subject to interpretation and application. However, as a matter of principle, the presumption as I've said before is to the absence of restrictions unless there is a compelling state interest. Stating a religous or a political opinion doesn't rise to that level, as the courts have ruled in the past.
The question I posed (and not just academic trivia, given the new composition of the SCOTUS, IMO) was whether the "rights" found in the First Amendment limit the states in their exercise of sovereignty? That is, where the fed legislature can't prohibit speech because of the First Amendment, can the state or local government? Can the local school principle? Or, for that matter, can the Executive Branch in the exercise of its powers, both enumerated or implied? These are serious questions, about to become even more on the "front burner", IMO. You've stated some magic words, as they apply to the Congress. Again, I ask: Why does the local school authority need show "compelling state interest" before it restricts speech?
I agree that this is going to become an increasingly significant issue. The answer lies in Amendment Ten, the so-called States' Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution grants power and also prevents certain powers as well. It makes no claim to enumerate all powers delegrated or prohibited, as in Amendment Nine: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thus, Congress may be silent on what kinds of speach are permissible and may also delegate to the states other kinds of restrictions on, say, libel law. However, it doesn't follow that the Misssissippi, for example, can invoke posse comitatus to close down all the broadcast stations and newspapers and require that everyone attends their Southern Baptist church of choice, as that would fall under a violation of the First Amendment. At the end of the day, the compelling state interest is the legitimacy of the constitution itself. This becomes especially true in today where the temptation to make the First Amendment a dead letter law may become compelling given our so-called war on terror where security trumps freedom.
Freedom is a fragile flower indeed.
Part of the role of the SCOTUS, IMOHO, is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The government should not be in the game of endorsing religion and for many of us, people proselytizing in government sponsored events is exactly that.
We need to achieve both goals-- protect minority rights while expanding the freedoms expressed in the First Amendment. John Stevens, in his dissent in the Morse v. Frederick case, states that "Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of counterveiling views." The problem here is a matter of interpretation. What you may see as proselytizing, I may see as a benign expression of an ideosyncratic point of view-- something that happens every day both inside the school and outside. If instead of a speech, a student had stated the same thing in a letter to the school newspaper, should it be censored on the same grounds? What if that student wore an armband protesting the war in Iraq or a button that said "Bush Rocks", could that student be suspended? I do agree that the government should not endorse religion, but I disagree that perceived efforts to proselytize in a government setting is a manifestation of the government's endorsement of religion. And I fear the imposition of a rule that prohibits such religious expression would lead to the government's supression of literary and political expressions.
But, if people being ushered (quite literally) unto adulthood cannot handle hearing a peer speak of her religious delusions, then they are in serious trouble.
I agree. The school recognizes those who are the first in their class and gives them a forum to mouth their platitudes or delusions. However, the school administrators must think the audience is hopelessly mentally weak to succumb to those few minutes of platitudes or delusions. If the teachers are doing their jobs, these are all battles that should have been fought well before graduation day. I hope we never reach that point of political correctness where we cannot have these intellectual battles in secular classrooms. I think it goes back to pedagogical assumptions. If you believe the best way to educate is to indoctrinate, then by all means teach them what to think -- only that which is good and true-- and quarantine them from folly, perhaps through home schooling. Alternatively, if you want to teach your children how to think, how to develop tough minds and confidence in reasoning and rationality, then give them opportunities to reason and to think for themselves.
(Channelling Professor Charles W. Kingsfield.)
Speak louder, Hart. Fill the room with your intelligence. What? Nothing? OK, here's a dime to call your mommy. Tell her you'll never make it as a 1L. Who makes these determinations? Who establishes these societal rules? The answer, class, is simply: the courts. Class dismissed.
Labels: First Amendment
posted by My Mall and News at
10:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home