Posted on 07/03/2005 11:11:51 AM PDT by wagglebee
Except that abortion is taught in schools as a "right" and valid form of birth control and in sexual education/indoctrination classes pamphlets are distributed.
No, it doesn't. Children don't have all the same legal rights as adults do.
If the school doesn't let kids hand out pro-abortion info, then they're perfectly right to not let her hand out info.
She's there to learn, not agitate. If she was wanting to hand out pro-abortion leaflets we'd be all over her, her parents and the school for allowing it. Time for a little consistency.
There is always the public sidewalk, outside the school.
O! You right-wing loonie, claiming we shouldn't politicize our public schools and suggesting our students should spend more time on studies than they do on activism!
</sarc>
Be careful...the faux conservatives don't like that stance too much.
You said: Well, he did say they wouldnt let the pro-abortion groups hand out anything either. So I guess its fair at least.
That was my thought also, at first. But on further consideration, this is an illegal infringement on speech because it is content-based. It would only be valid if NO one can hand out ANY kind of material of any content. No fund-raising brochures, no class ring materials, etc. You simply cannot restrict speech based upon its content unless the speech is obscene. The only "out" might be the in loco parentis status of schools.
Irrelevant since this isn't the splantation and the students are not the school's property. The 1st Amend. applies, because the speech engaged in does have as it's core, questions, facts and answers regarding fundamental moral principles and concepts of right and wrong. If you think the school district and it's employees have sole rightful possession of what may and may not be thought and discussed by it's students, you are wrong. This is the US and it's principles and rights are to be taught and extended to all. The judge in this case feigned fairness and gave the matter up to the pro-aborts that occupy the seats of power in the schools.
"She's there to learn, not agitate."
If advocating moral behavior is agitation to you, then so be it. Being that we're just a few hours from comemorating an act agitating the king, I can only wish this girl the best of luck and my promise to stand by her efforts.
"If she was wanting to hand out pro-abortion leaflets we'd be all over her, her parents and the school for allowing it."
I wouldn't and the Constitution doesn't permit it. As above and as this girl did in her school, the rubbish should be countered with the truth.
So they should be taught to be barefoot and pregnant!
Most schools have a debating team, and it is considered an honor to be on some schools debating teams...
Maybe football is a more important institution at most schools and is part of the learning process.
Debate was an accredited course at the High School I went to.
I remember classes where we were taught about debating.
Maybe pornography was part of the learning process at your school... It is protected under free speech.
If they teach sex education, this student should have the right to show both sides at the school, and not the Planned Parenthood side (who openly endorsed John Kerry with Federal Tax dollars).
I agree with the judgement. Schools are not open free speech zones. There is a need for order and decorum the authority of the Principal to set as his will with reason.
But what the hey -- I'll argue the 14th wasn't needed because the protections to individuals granted in Bill of Rights applied as limits to all governmental entities that were joined to or di join to the Unitied States.
And I'll argue that the Civil War was fought as a police action to assure that Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (as recast into the Bill of Rights) was treated just so.
As to the school -- a school is like a ship, and the Principal like a Ship's Captain. On board, his authority is supreme. That's "strong indivdualism" -- for the Principal is an individual. Ideally the School Board could remove him as a check, but his actions except if illegal, immoral, gross incompetence, or extraordinary are not reviewable. Just my ideals.
You're missing the point that it's simply more expedient for a campus to ban all pamphlets.
That's funny. Aren't the sex-ed classes and the school clinic which refer young girls to Planned Parenthood for birth control, or taking care of their little "problems", pro-abort in their bent?
It's only a battlefield, I suppose, if both sides are presented.
I agree completely. School curruculum is already pro-abortion. This judge seems intent on preserving public schools as infanticide indoctrination centers.
There's no little irony in the fact that the first public school in Europe (I believe) was in Geneva. It provided the first example of education for all, and became a model. It's founder: the great reformer, John Calvin. What would Calvin have said about sex-ed, never mind abortion?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.