Posted on 07/03/2005 11:11:51 AM PDT by wagglebee
FORT MYERS, Fla. - A federal judge refused to allow a 15-year-old girl to distribute anti-abortion pamphlets at school, saying the divisive issue could turn the hallways into a "battlefield."
Cypress Lake Middle School eighth-grader Michelle Heinkel wanted to hand out the literature to classmates on a "day of remembrance" for abortion victims - despite being barred last year because the Lee County school district's blanket policy bans student distribution of pamphlets.
In a 21-page order, U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on Friday ruled that if the school board allowed Heinkel to disseminate the pamphlets, then they would have to allow abortion rights advocates to distribute theirs.
"Permitting pro-life and pro-choice literature to be distributed by students in the school hallways would turn the school hallways into a battlefield," Covington wrote in the order.
However, Covington said that its policy banning advertising is unconstitutional. The policy does not allow ads on campuses that may be obscene, libelous, political, religious or proselytizing.
"The policy operates to exclude materials that deal with an otherwise permissible subject solely because the materials address the subject from a religious viewpoint," Covington wrote. "For this reason ... the policy is unconstitutional."
Heinkel's attorney Mathew D. Staver said he was surprised at Covington's ruling and said it would be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
Keith Martin, the school board's attorney, said the board will continue the legal battle if necessary.
Heinkel went to court on March 26, 2004, asking U.S. District Judge John E. Steele to issue an emergency order to allow her to distribute the pamphlets. Steele denied the request and the case was later assigned to Covington.
Pro-life Ping!
But...but...I thought the left wanted free speech??
For their side only, doncha know...
This isn't even an abortion matter. This is trampling free speech yet again.
If she was handing out an instruction DVD showing how to put a condom on a cucumber, she'd be awarded with a school parade and the "student of the year" award.
Well, he did say they wouldnt let the pro-abortion groups hand out anything either. So I guess its fair at least.
It's a school. They should be there to learn, not to debate.
Unless of course you count the pro-death curriculum taught in the classrooms.
Perhaps they could discuss those mythical "victims of back-alley abortions" from the "bad old days" when mothers weren't allowed to kill their own children.
Sad but true.
"They should be there to learn, not to debate."
LOL!!!!!!!!
I'm so confused.
It's a public school. The 1st Amend guarantee of free speech applies.
Killing babies and gay marriage are the two sacraments of the Left. They believe in them with religious fervor.
They have recently added involuntary starvation and dehydration of the infirmed to that list.
"It's a school. They should be there to learn, not to debate."
hmmmm, I was on the debate team in school.
Weird, eh? It's a school....and there'll be no critical thinking goin' on in here!
This is the appropriate result, in my opinion, according to supreme court jurisprudence. As long as it's a blanket prohibition on distributing any and all pamphlets, that's a content neutral restriction on free speech. Additionally, schools have been held by the Court to not be public forums for speech, since restricting speech there can serve an important government interest (you know...kids learning to spell).
Just a comment on the jurisprudence...nothing more...
My school (a technology college) has a policy (don't know if it's written or common sense), of no discussions regarding religion, sex, and politics. I'm OK with that in that it's just distracting from the main purpose of being there, which is to learn.
In high schools, however, I have mixed feelings, since academia seems to lean way too far to the left...
If it is true, and can be documented, just because it makes you sick is not an argument for banning it, porn for example.
The mat'ls weren't distributed during class time and there was no indication the matl's were being force fed. The school bureaucrats and the judge interfered in what is essentially discourse between the students and perhaps faculty on their own time. Also, the matl. was of an educational nature and unarguably of worth regarding moral values.
"It's a school. They should be there to learn, not to debate."
Indeed it is a school.
They should be there to "learn" and part of their world includes abortion.
You're right, there should be NO debate on abortion when they are allowed to "learn" what an abortion is and ideally what an abortion looks like - then, they will have "learned" something and there will be no need for "debate".
How do you justify the "day of silence" in schools across the country to pay coerced homage to gays?
So can I distribute porn in school?
The school faculty handles the pro abort mat'l. He didn't address that. I'm sure she was well aware of that when she composed her rubbish.
Community stds.
Right...I was just making a point.
Besides the obvious obscenity issues, it's a content neutral restriction. For example, the same result should occur if this suit was someone trying to pass out "Bush lied" pamphlets and the administration wouldn't let them...
Apparently, the judge upheld the school bureaucrats action on public safety grounds. It's a bogus decision. The 1st Amend. doesn't allow for any infringement, public safety notwithstanding.
Right. School is about killing time, not pursuing truth, particularly with regard to life and death issues.
Imagine interupting algebra class for this!
But indoctrination is permissible and is not a devisive issue. So, who are the intolerant ones? Of course, the ones who would turn the hallways into a battlefield.
The same would apply in reverse in this case, if they have a problem with what I am doing counter protest me, if my actions are peaceable and do not excite to riot, she has a good argument, this applies to Mass only.
I'm all about people thinking for themselves, don't get me wrong, but I think it is an issue that has no place in school.
hmmmm, I was on the debate team in school.
You want a cookie or something? Seriously though, if she wants to do that after school just like your debate team was an extracuricular activity I bet, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But to be going around while classes are in session would distract students from learning.
Except for health class.
I don't see the leftism here. The ruling is spot-on. If you give one side of the debate the freedom to distribute pamphlets, you're going to have to allow the other side the same opportunity.
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.
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.