Professor Newsom, I appreciate your comments, and while I intended to let my last post be my last post, I am not quite able to quit cold turkey. I think this really is an interesting and important issue.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed to the definition of bullying as being the source of our disagreement. When I think of bullying, I picture Moe the bully from Calvin and Hobbes threatening Calvin with a beating if Calvin doesn't jump off the swing. That is a very different thing than leaving a religious pamphlet on somebody's desk. Although I don't know what the pamphlet said, let's assume it stated that Jesus Christ was the Messiah promised in the Hebrew Bible and articulated a rationale for how Jesus Christ fulfilled various prophesies concerning the Messiah. While this would admitedly challenge a Jewish student's religious beliefs, how does this constitute bullying? Aside from the time, place or manner restrictions which we both recognize could be imposed upon any communication regardless of subject, what is it about this communication that makes it unworthy of protection under the First Amendment? An interesting comparison might be the materials handed out in high schools by groups like Planned Parenthood which inform students of the availability of various contraceptive devices and abortion related services offered by Planned Parenthood or similar entities. Of course, Planned Parenthood passes these materials out to everyone not targeted students, but wouldn't these materials be just as offensive to the Catholic student who believes that birth control and abortion are sinful, as the Jesus is the Messiah materials are to the Jewish student? If we define "bullying" as speech which provides offense to some segment of the population, very quickly there will be no speech left which is not "bullying" to someone. I think that is why the Supreme Court has often pointed out that the appropriate response to speech with which one disagrees is not censorship, but more speech. The problem is that unless we are dealing with threats, hate speech or the like, someone decides that viewpoint A is "bullying" because the message conveyed is offensive. The "offensiveness" of the message is determined by how strongly the person making the decision disagrees with the message conveyed. Bullying becomes the communication of a message with which the administrator in charge disagrees, and the allowance or disallowance of speech depends on the views and whims of the person in charge. I am concerned that in practice, the same school administrator who decides that it is bullying to distribute the Jesus is the Messiah tract, will turn around and find that it is not bullying for the Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered club to pass out flyers promoting alternative sexual lifestyles. Certainly, that is not what current First Amendment jurisprudence contemplates. Am I missing your point here, are do you define "bullying" differently? Gene Summerlin Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 So. 10th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 434-8040 (402) 434-8044 (FAX) (402) 730-5344 (Mobile) www.osolaw.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
