| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2003 05:12:40 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
From the article:
------------------------------------
In attempt to settle a lawsuit filed by a graduate who handed out
flyers encouraging students to question the theory of evolution, the
Pennridge school board voted this week to review a policy that
requires students to get an administrator's blessing before
distributing literature.
Review is the key word - the board is not required to change a thing
under the proposed settlement.
School board members and Superintendent Robert Kish don't think there
is anything wrong with the policy as it is. It helps the district
protect students, Kish said.
"There's racist stuff out there, there's how-to-build-bombs stuff," he
said. "We have a responsibility to the community to safeguard these
kids, and part of that is [monitoring] what is put in their hands by
other kids during the school day."
But Joe Baker, who graduated from Pennridge High School in 2001,
thinks the policy violates students' right to free speech.
-------------------------------------
The rest at http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6466293.htm
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 06:42:51 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308060213.7a28bff8@posting.google.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------
In attempt to settle a lawsuit filed by a graduate who handed out
flyers encouraging students to question the theory of evolution, the
Pennridge school board voted this week to review a policy that
requires students to get an administrator's blessing before
distributing literature.
Review is the key word - the board is not required to change a thing
under the proposed settlement.
School board members and Superintendent Robert Kish don't think there
is anything wrong with the policy as it is. It helps the district
protect students, Kish said.
"There's racist stuff out there, there's how-to-build-bombs stuff," he
said. "We have a responsibility to the community to safeguard these
kids, and part of that is [monitoring] what is put in their hands by
other kids during the school day."
The schools have a responsibility to protect the students First Amendment
Rights not to decide which type of speech is protected. The courts decide
that. $40,000 + to keep a student from handing out flyers when the Supreme
court clearly defines it as protected speech. The decision clearly showed
that the school was trying to protect its own self interest, not the
students and this is what happen when "review" policies are enacted.
Lane
Freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for
the views they express, or the words they speak or write.
- Justice Hugo Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 06:13:43 PM |
|
|
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308060213.7a28bff8@posting.google.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------
In attempt to settle a lawsuit filed by a graduate who handed out
flyers encouraging students to question the theory of evolution, the
The schools have a responsibility to protect the students First Amendment
Rights not to decide which type of speech is protected. The courts decide
that. $40,000 + to keep a student from handing out flyers when the Supreme
According to the article, the person was not a student. What the school
should have done is have the person arrested for trespassing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 11:45:06 PM |
|
|
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:6u23jvc6i83hrkouo0ffhqjbgjaulavjj0@news.supernews.com...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308060213.7a28bff8@posting.google.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------
In attempt to settle a lawsuit filed by a graduate who handed out
flyers encouraging students to question the theory of evolution, the
The schools have a responsibility to protect the students First Amendment
Rights not to decide which type of speech is protected. The courts decide
that. $40,000 + to keep a student from handing out flyers when the
Supreme
According to the article, the person was not a student. What the school
should have done is have the person arrested for trespassing.
Read it again. He was no longer a student when the lawsuit was filed.
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 10:22:15 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308060213.7a28bff8@posting.google.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------
In attempt to settle a lawsuit filed by a graduate who handed out
flyers encouraging students to question the theory of evolution, the
Pennridge school board voted this week to review a policy that
requires students to get an administrator's blessing before
distributing literature.
Review is the key word - the board is not required to change a thing
under the proposed settlement.
School board members and Superintendent Robert Kish don't think there
is anything wrong with the policy as it is. It helps the district
protect students, Kish said.
"There's racist stuff out there, there's how-to-build-bombs stuff," he
said. "We have a responsibility to the community to safeguard these
kids, and part of that is [monitoring] what is put in their hands by
other kids during the school day."
The schools have a responsibility to protect the students First Amendment
Rights not to decide which type of speech is protected. The courts decide
that. $40,000 + to keep a student from handing out flyers when the Supreme
court clearly defines it as protected speech. The decision clearly showed
that the school was trying to protect its own self interest, not the
students and this is what happen when "review" policies are enacted.
I could swear we've discussed this a thousand times, but the courts
(including the supremes) have long held that schools have some
pretty strong compelling interests which give them more latitude
than adult institutions in many areas, including restricting
behavior and stronger ability to search.
I think this one might stand. If it's an across-the-board
policy to review, it's not discriminating against any
particular viewpoint a priori. It just gives the school
the ability to restrict especially dangerous (to safety and
to the educational environment) distributions, and to
prepare for borderline cases that may cause problems.
rich
Lane
Freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for
the views they express, or the words they speak or write.
- Justice Hugo Black
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 06:16:02 PM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "RHertz" <rhertz@cox.net> wrote in
<n4bYa.16103$tf.10561@lakeread03>:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to adhere to
the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right to
free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
Agreed. Still, they don't have a constitutional right to have lies about
science taught in public schools in support of their religion.
Moreover, having a strong opinion about something does not give a person
the right to enter a school and promote said strong opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 11:42:31 PM |
|
|
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:4233jvoeql8s3jg20c3dsq6v01qeor4kvo@news.supernews.com...
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "RHertz" <rhertz@cox.net> wrote in
<n4bYa.16103$tf.10561@lakeread03>:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to adhere
to
the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right to
free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
Agreed. Still, they don't have a constitutional right to have lies about
science taught in public schools in support of their religion.
Moreover, having a strong opinion about something does not give a person
the right to enter a school and promote said strong opinion.
In the US they have that right and a duty to promote it . That's what a
democracy is all about. Voicing your opinion.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 08:52:08 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:4233jvoeql8s3jg20c3dsq6v01qeor4kvo@news.supernews.com...
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "RHertz" <rhertz@cox.net> wrote in
<n4bYa.16103$tf.10561@lakeread03>:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to adhere
to
the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right to
free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
Agreed. Still, they don't have a constitutional right to have lies about
science taught in public schools in support of their religion.
Moreover, having a strong opinion about something does not give a person
the right to enter a school and promote said strong opinion.
In the US they have that right and a duty to promote it . That's what a
democracy is all about. Voicing your opinion.
You are a loony. There is no such right to enter a public
school, without approval, and start spouting your beliefs.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 04:19:10 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj4mdedn9ro311@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:4233jvoeql8s3jg20c3dsq6v01qeor4kvo@news.supernews.com...
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "RHertz" <rhertz@cox.net> wrote in
<n4bYa.16103$tf.10561@lakeread03>:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to
adhere
to
the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right
to
free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
Agreed. Still, they don't have a constitutional right to have lies
about
science taught in public schools in support of their religion.
Moreover, having a strong opinion about something does not give a
person
the right to enter a school and promote said strong opinion.
In the US they have that right and a duty to promote it . That's what a
democracy is all about. Voicing your opinion.
You are a loony. There is no such right to enter a public
school, without approval, and start spouting your beliefs.
rich
Sorry I thought we were talking students here.
We are, although some facts have been tossed around a bit.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 12:09:42 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote in
<tNkYa.18680$qg3.1159233@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:4233jvoeql8s3jg20c3dsq6v01qeor4kvo@news.supernews.com...
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "RHertz" <rhertz@cox.net> wrote in
<n4bYa.16103$tf.10561@lakeread03>:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to adhere
to
the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right to
free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
Agreed. Still, they don't have a constitutional right to have lies about
science taught in public schools in support of their religion.
Moreover, having a strong opinion about something does not give a person
the right to enter a school and promote said strong opinion.
In the US they have that right and a duty to promote it . That's what a
democracy is all about. Voicing your opinion.
You have a right to promote your opinion, but only in the appropriate
place at the appropriate time. You do not have the right to use public
schools to inflict your religious claims on a child who is not allowed
to leave a science class.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "soCode" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 09:31:03 AM |
|
|
Lane Lewis wrote:
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:4233jvoeql8s3jg20c3dsq6v01qeor4kvo@news.supernews.com...
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "RHertz" <rhertz@cox.net> wrote in
<n4bYa.16103$tf.10561@lakeread03>:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to adhere
to
the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right to
free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
Agreed. Still, they don't have a constitutional right to have lies about
science taught in public schools in support of their religion.
Moreover, having a strong opinion about something does not give a person
the right to enter a school and promote said strong opinion.
In the US they have that right and a duty to promote it.
No they don't. A right to free speech doesn't guarantee an
audience.
soCode
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 01:38:25 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj27a6oohcs1c4@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
"Jason Spaceman" <jspaceman@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:b9401f8a.0308060213.7a28bff8@posting.google.com...
From the article:
------------------------------------
In attempt to settle a lawsuit filed by a graduate who handed out
flyers encouraging students to question the theory of evolution, the
Pennridge school board voted this week to review a policy that
requires students to get an administrator's blessing before
distributing literature.
Review is the key word - the board is not required to change a thing
under the proposed settlement.
School board members and Superintendent Robert Kish don't think there
is anything wrong with the policy as it is. It helps the district
protect students, Kish said.
"There's racist stuff out there, there's how-to-build-bombs stuff," he
said. "We have a responsibility to the community to safeguard these
kids, and part of that is [monitoring] what is put in their hands by
other kids during the school day."
The schools have a responsibility to protect the students First
Amendment
Rights not to decide which type of speech is protected. The courts
decide
that. $40,000 + to keep a student from handing out flyers when the
Supreme
court clearly defines it as protected speech. The decision clearly
showed
that the school was trying to protect its own self interest, not the
students and this is what happen when "review" policies are enacted.
I could swear we've discussed this a thousand times, but the courts
(including the supremes) have long held that schools have some
pretty strong compelling interests which give them more latitude
than adult institutions in many areas, including restricting
behavior and stronger ability to search.
I think this one might stand. If it's an across-the-board
policy to review, it's not discriminating against any
particular viewpoint a priori. It just gives the school
the ability to restrict especially dangerous (to safety and
to the educational environment) distributions, and to
prepare for borderline cases that may cause problems.
rich
Not the point, the review process always leads to intimidation and
persecution. It is inherent in the system as this case demonstrated.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Any
kind of restriction on free speech results in no free speech so you have a
choice. Do you want the students to grow up in a totalitarian system. Do you
think this is the way to bring up children in the US or would it be better
to show our students what this country really stands for.
Deer loard. Do I really need to mention "Fire!"
There are already "clear and present danger" restrictions on free speech and
a review process is not necessary and obviously what this kid was handing
out didn't even come close to being dangerous. It was quashed for political
reasons only and the school admitted it was wrong. The review process is
inherently unfair and I hope the courts tackle this soon.
I don't believe this one was even quashed. I think the kid refused to
submit to the inspection, handed out the materials without it, and
then got in trouble. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I
remember the story from yesterday.
And, as I said, the review process will most likely stand. It
doesn't discriminate, and the school can make a case to a reasonable
person that it is a useful and necessary tool for maintaining order
and safety at the school. And that's the only threshold that they
have to cross.
rich
Lane
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who
want crops without plowing the ground.
- Frederick Douglass
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 03:44:39 PM |
|
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj2iq21968tqa0@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
Not the point, the review process always leads to intimidation and
persecution. It is inherent in the system as this case demonstrated.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer alternative.
Any
kind of restriction on free speech results in no free speech so you have
a
choice. Do you want the students to grow up in a totalitarian system. Do
you
think this is the way to bring up children in the US or would it be
better
to show our students what this country really stands for.
Deer loard. Do I really need to mention "Fire!"
Falls under the "Clear and Present Danger" rule. Which is not considered
free speech.
There are already "clear and present danger" restrictions on free speech
and
a review process is not necessary and obviously what this kid was
handing
out didn't even come close to being dangerous. It was quashed for
political
reasons only and the school admitted it was wrong. The review process is
inherently unfair and I hope the courts tackle this soon.
I don't believe this one was even quashed. I think the kid refused to
submit to the inspection, handed out the materials without it, and
then got in trouble. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I
remember the story from yesterday.
The article said he was stopped.
And, as I said, the review process will most likely stand. It
doesn't discriminate, and the school can make a case to a reasonable
person that it is a useful and necessary tool for maintaining order
and safety at the school. And that's the only threshold that they
have to cross.
rich
Define reasonable person. What about the Constitution. The review
process is nothing more than an abuse of power and a way to get around the
first amendment which will make it unconstitutional regardless if it sounds
rational.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 06:22:33 PM |
|
|
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer alternative.
When our forefathers thought of freedom of speech, they were generally
thinking freedom of _political_ speech. The purpose of the Bill of
Rights was to curtail the government; in the case of the 1st Amendment,
its purpose was to prevent the government from going after those who
held unpopular political views.
And considering that the idea of children (and wives) as property was
stronger in those days than today, it's unlikely that any of our
forefathers would have thought that freedom of speech trumped parental
rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 11:33:19 PM |
|
|
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:1833jv01kfn91nmpm3otkl58msdbmtj9ko@news.supernews.com...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer alternative.
When our forefathers thought of freedom of speech, they were generally
thinking freedom of _political_ speech. The purpose of the Bill of
Rights was to curtail the government; in the case of the 1st Amendment,
its purpose was to prevent the government from going after those who
held unpopular political views.
And considering that the idea of children (and wives) as property was
stronger in those days than today, it's unlikely that any of our
forefathers would have thought that freedom of speech trumped parental
rights.
Freedom of speech for their children is a parental right. It is the parents
right over the state trying to silence their children's political or
religious views. The state has no right to silence anyone's political views
(nor review them). This is what we need to teach our children. It should be
in fact their most important lesson. Totalitarian dictatorships always
remove the right to free speech, why should we run our schools following
that example.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 01:58:58 AM |
|
|
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:1833jv01kfn91nmpm3otkl58msdbmtj9ko@news.supernews.com...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer alternative.
And considering that the idea of children (and wives) as property was
stronger in those days than today, it's unlikely that any of our
forefathers would have thought that freedom of speech trumped parental
rights.
Freedom of speech for their children is a parental right. It is the parents
right over the state trying to silence their children's political or
religious views. The state has no right to silence anyone's political views
(nor review them). This is what we need to teach our children. It should be
in fact their most important lesson. Totalitarian dictatorships always
remove the right to free speech, why should we run our schools following
that example.
That sounds good, but is besides the point. You implied that our
forefathers, in the name of free speech, would have agreed to members of
the general public entering high schools to promote their personally
held beliefs. That's simply not believable.
Now, if what you're saying is that members of the general public
_should_ be allowed on school grounds to promote their beliefs, I have
to disagree with that, too. Children go to school to learn academic
subjects, not to become a captive audience for assorted nutcases. And if
you let creationism in for the sake of free speech, then you must also
allow everyone else in. And that, no responsible parent would allow, no
matter what the state said (just think of the sex ed controversies).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 01:16:02 PM |
|
|
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:20t3jvslq8l0ku013h1fn4jjckicktidih@news.supernews.com...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:1833jv01kfn91nmpm3otkl58msdbmtj9ko@news.supernews.com...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer
alternative.
And considering that the idea of children (and wives) as property was
stronger in those days than today, it's unlikely that any of our
forefathers would have thought that freedom of speech trumped parental
rights.
Freedom of speech for their children is a parental right. It is the
parents
right over the state trying to silence their children's political or
religious views. The state has no right to silence anyone's political
views
(nor review them). This is what we need to teach our children. It should
be
in fact their most important lesson. Totalitarian dictatorships always
remove the right to free speech, why should we run our schools following
that example.
That sounds good, but is besides the point. You implied that our
forefathers, in the name of free speech, would have agreed to members of
the general public entering high schools to promote their personally
held beliefs. That's simply not believable.
Now, if what you're saying is that members of the general public
_should_ be allowed on school grounds to promote their beliefs, I have
to disagree with that, too. Children go to school to learn academic
subjects, not to become a captive audience for assorted nutcases. And if
you let creationism in for the sake of free speech, then you must also
allow everyone else in. And that, no responsible parent would allow, no
matter what the state said (just think of the sex ed controversies).
Ithought we were referring to students, I never said or implied General
Public.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 06:36:00 PM |
|
|
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ithought we were referring to students, I never said or implied General
Public.
Oh, okay. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 08:56:42 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:1833jv01kfn91nmpm3otkl58msdbmtj9ko@news.supernews.com...
"Lane Lewis" <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer alternative.
When our forefathers thought of freedom of speech, they were generally
thinking freedom of _political_ speech. The purpose of the Bill of
Rights was to curtail the government; in the case of the 1st Amendment,
its purpose was to prevent the government from going after those who
held unpopular political views.
And considering that the idea of children (and wives) as property was
stronger in those days than today, it's unlikely that any of our
forefathers would have thought that freedom of speech trumped parental
rights.
Freedom of speech for their children is a parental right. It is the parents
right over the state trying to silence their children's political or
religious views. The state has no right to silence anyone's political views
(nor review them). This is what we need to teach our children. It should be
in fact their most important lesson. Totalitarian dictatorships always
remove the right to free speech, why should we run our schools following
that example.
Your arguments are getting worse. Dictatorial states also remove
the right to murder schoolchildren.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 03:57:44 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj2iq21968tqa0@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
Not the point, the review process always leads to intimidation and
persecution. It is inherent in the system as this case demonstrated.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer alternative.
You sound like a Monty Python character digging in filth and
pontificating about political systems. You do realize that
we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune around here, right? I
mean, the anarcho- part, anyway.
[snip]
And, as I said, the review process will most likely stand. It
doesn't discriminate, and the school can make a case to a reasonable
person that it is a useful and necessary tool for maintaining order
and safety at the school. And that's the only threshold that they
have to cross.
rich
Define reasonable person. What about the Constitution. The review
process is nothing more than an abuse of power and a way to get around the
first amendment which will make it unconstitutional regardless if it sounds
rational.
I think you misunderstand "unconstitutional." Since just about
any supreme court in the history of this country would have
supported this measure, it's "constitutional." Especially
since the current court will.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 04:58:04 PM |
|
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj2qv8qmb2nm12@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj2iq21968tqa0@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti
kuin
hämähäkki:
Not the point, the review process always leads to intimidation
and
persecution. It is inherent in the system as this case demonstrated.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer
alternative.
You sound like a Monty Python character digging in filth and
pontificating about political systems. You do realize that
we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune around here, right? I
mean, the anarcho- part, anyway.
[snip]
And, as I said, the review process will most likely stand. It
doesn't discriminate, and the school can make a case to a reasonable
person that it is a useful and necessary tool for maintaining order
and safety at the school. And that's the only threshold that they
have to cross.
rich
Define reasonable person. What about the Constitution. The review
process is nothing more than an abuse of power and a way to get around
the
first amendment which will make it unconstitutional regardless if it
sounds
rational.
I think you misunderstand "unconstitutional." Since just about
any supreme court in the history of this country would have
supported this measure, it's "constitutional." Especially
since the current court will.
rich
It's never been supported in the courts and that is why the school
system is reviewing the case, also why they settled. Any law that is used
for other than it's stated purpose becomes unconstitutional. If it can be
shown that it mainly used to restrict the constitution the law must be
struck down. Abuse of the legal system is not tolerated in the courts.
A good example was the equal but separate laws which it turned out to be
anything but equal. The law sounded just, but the result was a disaster. The
court ruled that Equal but Separate was inherently unequal.
The review process will be shown also to have an inherent weakness, the
review process can drag on for weeks, or intimidation to change the
documents so that they don't offend the school system. Repercussions against
students who disagree with the school administration or other powerful
people. The end result is not free speech at all but a process to end any
criticism of those in control. Not a lesson I prefer my children to learn.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 08:55:39 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj2qv8qmb2nm12@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj2iq21968tqa0@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti
kuin
hämähäkki:
Not the point, the review process always leads to intimidation
and
persecution. It is inherent in the system as this case demonstrated.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Our forefathers thought that freedom of speech was the safer
alternative.
You sound like a Monty Python character digging in filth and
pontificating about political systems. You do realize that
we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune around here, right? I
mean, the anarcho- part, anyway.
[snip]
And, as I said, the review process will most likely stand. It
doesn't discriminate, and the school can make a case to a reasonable
person that it is a useful and necessary tool for maintaining order
and safety at the school. And that's the only threshold that they
have to cross.
rich
Define reasonable person. What about the Constitution. The review
process is nothing more than an abuse of power and a way to get around
the
first amendment which will make it unconstitutional regardless if it
sounds
rational.
I think you misunderstand "unconstitutional." Since just about
any supreme court in the history of this country would have
supported this measure, it's "constitutional." Especially
since the current court will.
rich
It's never been supported in the courts and that is why the school
system is reviewing the case, also why they settled.
They won, Lane. All they have to do is "review the policy."
Any law that is used
for other than it's stated purpose becomes unconstitutional. If it can be
shown that it mainly used to restrict the constitution the law must be
struck down. Abuse of the legal system is not tolerated in the courts.
Your arguments have absolutely no basis in fact. You seem quite
religious about this subject.
A good example was the equal but separate laws which it turned out to be
anything but equal. The law sounded just, but the result was a disaster. The
court ruled that Equal but Separate was inherently unequal.
The review process will be shown also to have an inherent weakness, the
review process can drag on for weeks, or intimidation to change the
documents so that they don't offend the school system. Repercussions against
students who disagree with the school administration or other powerful
people. The end result is not free speech at all but a process to end any
criticism of those in control. Not a lesson I prefer my children to learn.
The school system does not have to change its policy, according to
what was reported here. And it's hard to whine that the review
policy was abusive if you don't have a single instance where it
was abusive. Perhaps he should have submitted to the review, and
then discovered whether it was abusive.
rich
Lane
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
09 Aug 2003 01:54:30 AM |
|
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vj4mk3i1g08a88@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
snip
It's never been supported in the courts and that is why the school
system is reviewing the case, also why they settled.
They won, Lane. All they have to do is "review the policy."
Any law that is used
for other than it's stated purpose becomes unconstitutional. If it can
be
shown that it mainly used to restrict the constitution the law must be
struck down. Abuse of the legal system is not tolerated in the courts.
Your arguments have absolutely no basis in fact. You seem quite
religious about this subject.
A good example was the equal but separate laws which it turned out
to be
anything but equal. The law sounded just, but the result was a disaster.
The
court ruled that Equal but Separate was inherently unequal.
The review process will be shown also to have an inherent weakness,
the
review process can drag on for weeks, or intimidation to change the
documents so that they don't offend the school system. Repercussions
against
students who disagree with the school administration or other powerful
people. The end result is not free speech at all but a process to end
any
criticism of those in control. Not a lesson I prefer my children to
learn.
The school system does not have to change its policy, according to
what was reported here. And it's hard to whine that the review
policy was abusive if you don't have a single instance where it
was abusive. Perhaps he should have submitted to the review, and
then discovered whether it was abusive.
rich
A Rose by any other name
Review board is just a euphemism for censorship board.
Review board = Censorship board
If their purpose is just to review and not censor then their purpose is
meaningless.
No one should submit to this degree censorship for any reason. One only
has to look at the abuse of review boards in the past such as the one
Galileo had to submit to.
And no the High Court could never support Free Speech on the one hand and
also support a review board on the other. The Ideas are diametrically
opposed. The illogic of such a proposal is so glaringly obvious that the
court would be asked to resign and refund their salary.
The school had it gone to court would have to admit that it set up a
censorship board or else a meaningless one, either of which would have a
disgraceful effect on the school.
That is why they paid the 40,000 thousand dollars, it was the only way to
save face and perhaps their jobs. How does it feel to be a taxpayer stuck
with the bill for such incompetence and or treachery.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
10 Aug 2003 10:58:18 PM |
|
|
"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:vja9f7p74svnba@corp.supernews.com...
In talk.origins Lane Lewis <lanejlewis@hotmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
snip
A Rose by any other name
Review board is just a euphemism for censorship board.
Mostly, although I also mentioned that it gives them a chance
to prepare for any borderline cases that they allow.
And you have granted that _some_ censorship is permissible
(violent pornography, at least).
Review board = Censorship board
If their purpose is just to review and not censor then their purpose
is
meaningless.
No one should submit to this degree censorship for any reason. One
only
has to look at the abuse of review boards in the past such as the one
Galileo had to submit to.
And no the High Court could never support Free Speech on the one hand
and
also support a review board on the other. The Ideas are diametrically
opposed. The illogic of such a proposal is so glaringly obvious that the
court would be asked to resign and refund their salary.
Many, many important ideas in this country are diametrically
opposed. You don't seem to be willing to allow anything to
balance against Free Speech. I am extremely libertarian myself,
but you are making absolute arguments that just don't stand up
in the real world.
The school had it gone to court would have to admit that it set up a
censorship board or else a meaningless one, either of which would have a
disgraceful effect on the school.
All schools do something like that, or nearly all.
Nearly all companies and government offices have rules about what
can be placed on a bulletin board, and that's for ADULTS.
That is why they paid the 40,000 thousand dollars, it was the only way
to
save face and perhaps their jobs. How does it feel to be a taxpayer
stuck
with the bill for such incompetence and or treachery.
I'm willing to allow the treachery (which in this case was
the filing of the lawsuit). Without any more details, though
I don't see that the schoolboard did anything wrong. And
they get to keep their policy and make the nuisance lawsuit
go away.
rich
Government and Corporate offices are not a good comparison. Your boss
can fire you for what you say because there are no free speech rights in the
office. Schools are different due to the fact that a school is mandatory not
optional, as an office would be.
I'll be willing to admit that there is a gray area in the school but a
review process before the fact is just to much to of a freedom to give up as
any review would be the death knell to any but the most popular beliefs.
What to do about the problem leaves only one alternative that I can see.
Wait until there is a problem and then allow the school officials to step in
without the threat of repercussions. This kind of policy does entail some
risks to the students, faculty, and others but then so does a review board
whose real threat would take longer to show up, but it is there nonetheless
(Galileo's lament).
I stated earlier how our founding fathers felt on the subject, that
freedom does not come without some risks, and it's a shame that often our
children might pay the price for our indifference, incompetence. Its just
that the alternative of producing the next generations without any knowledge
of what those risks are would assure that our form of government would not
survive in the long run.
As far as the students treachery I can see no harm in having the right
to hand out religious pamphlets and what was really behind all this, the
Bible. What the school did wrong was try to ban the Bible and no creationist
would stand for that.
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nokia" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 03:49:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:38:25 +0000 (UTC), rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
Not the point, the review process always leads to intimidation and
persecution. It is inherent in the system as this case demonstrated.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Help! I'm being repressed!
Damn everyone that doesn't recognise a Python quote.
--
Highpriest in the Church Of The Invisible Pink Unicorn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 02:28:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:40:21 +0000, RHertz wrote:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to adhere
to the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right
to free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
The question is how that right applies among the minors on schoolgrounds.
IMO, since the state requires children to attend school it must also
protect them from all types of exploitation while in the state's care,
including proselytizers, marketers, people peddling political materials,
etc. I don't think our schools should allow *any* kind of handouts other
than the educational materials provided by the instructors, plus whatever
the administrators need to hand out to support their mission.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
06 Aug 2003 03:54:07 PM |
|
|
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.08.06.19.27.42.104519@mail.utexas.edu...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:40:21 +0000, RHertz wrote:
As much as we might want to shut creationists up, they still have
constitutional rights that must be respected. It may be hard to adhere
to the Voltaire principle, but we must. There is a constitutional right
to free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
The question is how that right applies among the minors on schoolgrounds.
IMO, since the state requires children to attend school it must also
protect them from all types of exploitation while in the state's care,
including proselytizers, marketers, people peddling political materials,
etc. I don't think our schools should allow *any* kind of handouts other
than the educational materials provided by the instructors, plus whatever
the administrators need to hand out to support their mission.
The purpose of the school is to give children an education including the
principles of free speech. Unfortunately the marketers etc are already
there, free speech gives others the right to speak out against them. Coke
and Pepsi dominate many school systems, why deny the right of students to
speak out against these companies.
Lane
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
09 Aug 2003 07:35:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:04:56 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Robin Levett" <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rcrugb.588.ln@grendel.hayesway...
To quote you, Lane - "Read the article"; the case hasn't
been tried yet. The school is settling for nuisance value.
Insofar as there have been any rulings on the case, the
school have won.
Fact is they paid damages to the former student for their wrongdoing.
Fact is they offered him a few bucks to shut him up.
And clearly limits freedom of speech in high schools.
Actually not in any school. With the only exception that it not be intended
to disrupt proceedings.
Intention is irrelevant to the issue.
Yes it should be with the only exception that it not cause "substantial"
disruption to the school. Speech is protected even if it is intended to
cause disruption of the school.
Not according to the Supreme Court.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
10 Aug 2003 09:05:52 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7q4bjv4free5v7jn0l23hj9e2jngtvdlmc@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:04:56 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Robin Levett" <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rcrugb.588.ln@grendel.hayesway...
To quote you, Lane - "Read the article"; the case hasn't
been tried yet. The school is settling for nuisance value.
Insofar as there have been any rulings on the case, the
school have won.
Fact is they paid damages to the former student for their wrongdoing.
Fact is they offered him a few bucks to shut him up.
And clearly limits freedom of speech in high schools.
Actually not in any school. With the only exception that it not be
intended
to disrupt proceedings.
Intention is irrelevant to the issue.
Yes it should be with the only exception that it not cause "substantial"
disruption to the school. Speech is protected even if it is intended to
cause disruption of the school.
Not according to the Supreme Court.
The supeme court does not care what the content is or the intentions of the
speaker which would strickly be a matter of opinion. There only concern is
whether it mey cause a substantial disturbance. Your statement would require
that the court could read minds and that would require drugs or lie detector
tests. Besides all free speech is intended to cause disruption to some
degree. At least any meaningful speech.
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
10 Aug 2003 11:49:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:05:52 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7q4bjv4free5v7jn0l23hj9e2jngtvdlmc@Pern.rk...
Not according to the Supreme Court.
The supeme court does not care what the content is or the intentions of the
speaker which would strickly be a matter of opinion. There only concern is
whether it mey cause a substantial disturbance.
You read *whose* mind to come to that conclusion?
Your statement would require
that the court could read minds and that would require drugs or lie detector
tests.
The Supreme Court has ruled that children in school do NOT have the
same Constitutional rights as adults. That takes no mind reading at
all.
Besides all free speech is intended to cause disruption to some
degree. At least any meaningful speech.
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Pennridge schools to review flyer policy |
07 Aug 2003 09:28:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:10:19 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:a3k3jvke7ifr4q8l9mp96pbvut7d5l6fo8@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:42:51 +0000 (UTC), "Lane Lewis"
<lanejlewis@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
The schools have a responsibility to protect the students First Amendment
Rights not to decide which type of speech is protected.
Sorry, no, high school students don't have unlimited free speech, or
any other Constitutional, rights.
No one has unlimited free speech, there are restrictions but students do a
constitutional right to free speech and other constitutional rights such as
being treated equally under the eyes of the law.
But not as much of those rights as those not in school, according to
the SCOTUS.
The courts decide that.
They already have.
In favor of free speech, read the article, the school lost.
The SCOTUS has always ruled in favor of limiting the Constitutional
rights of students.
$40,000 + to keep a student from handing out flyers when the Supreme
court clearly defines it as protected speech.
And clearly limits freedom of speech in high schools.
Actually not in any school.
Actually, yes in schools.
The decision clearly showed that the school was trying to protect its own self interest
What self interest, other than educating students, does the school
have in teaching facts?
How about promoting the majority religion or political party.
This was about science and obeying rules. It had nothing to do with
politics or religion. (The flyers, OTOH, were clearly about
religion.)
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
