-Caveat Lector- > http://www.massnews.com/marsin.htm > http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a8d9b824e06.htm > > The Massachusetts News > > Christian Students Must Be Allowed to > Say Homosexuality Is a Sin > > Court Decision Will Have Profound Impact in Massachusetts > > February 16, 2001 > > A decision by a U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia about freedom of > speech will have > a profound impact in Massachusetts, says Boston's constitutional lawyer > Chester Darling. > > A three-judge panel held on Wednesday that Christian students must be > allowed to say > that homosexuality is a sin and to speak out on other moral issues. > > "We've been limiting free speech for a long time in Massachusetts, but > this unconstitutional > practice will not continue," Darling predicted. > > "Our terrible attitude was exhibited in its worst light last month," > Darling said, "when the > mayor of Newton said that he would fight with those parents who > disapprove of school > policies about homosexuality 'until their voices are no longer heard.' > > "They must stop that type of bigotry," Darling said, "an if they don't, > we will be happy to > have a court instruct them." > > Parent Challenges Schools > The suit in the Philadelphia court was about an anti-harassment policy in > schools at State > College, Pennsylvania. It was challenged by a parent as soon as it was > implemented > because his children feared, according to the court, that "they were > likely to be punished > under the Policy for speaking out about their religious beliefs, > engaging in symbolic > activities reflecting those beliefs, and distributing religious > literature." > > The Court of Appeals reversed a lower court which had dismissed the > parent's suit. > > The court ruling said the school district went too far when it > prohibited harassment based > on everything from race and sexual orientation to "other personal > characteristics,'' > including clothing, appearance and social skills. > > Experts said the ruling could force hundreds of school districts to > reassess their own > policies to ensure they comply with the ruling, the Associated Press has > reported. > > While the court acknowledged the district has a compelling interest in > promoting a safe > and conducive learning environment, it said officials failed to explain > why it anticipated > disruption ``from the broad swath of student speech prohibited under the > policy.'' > > Judge Samuel A. Alito wrote that the policy, enacted in August 1999, > ``appears to cover > substantially more speech than could be prohibited'' under existing > U.S. Supreme Court > precedents. > > A school may categorically ban ``lewd, vulgar or profane language'' and > may regulate > speech to meet a ``legitimate pedagogical concern,'' he wrote. But > other speech may be > limited ``only if it would substantially disrupt school operations or > interfere with the rights > of others.'' > > ``They believe, and their religion teaches," the parent about his > children, "that > homosexuality is a sin. Plaintiffs further believe that they have a > right to speak out about > the sinful nature and harmful effects of homosexuality.'' > > The parent argued that rules were already in place that prohibited > violence and other > physical harassment. > > ``What this policy was about is the content of somebody's speech,'' he > said, ``and it > chilled the First Amendment rights of every child in that school, every > teacher, every > visitor.'' > > The appeals court ruling overturned a lower court. The U.S. District > Court had rejected > the parent's suit, saying harassing speech has never been protected > under the free speech > protection of the First Amendment. > > Superintendent Patricia Best told the Associated Press she was > disappointed with the > decision, > but had not had a chance to review it with other district officials or > with the district's > attorneys. > > She said she didn't know whether the district would appeal. > One expert told The Philadelphia Inquirer that the ruling could have a > sweeping impact. > ``I don't know how many school districts have policies as broad as > State College's, but it > is probably a significant number,'' said Michael I. Levin, a lawyer for > the Pennsylvania > School Boards Association. > Excerpts from Opinion > > The court said, "In short, we see little basis for the District Court's > sweeping assertion that > 'harassment' -- at least when it consists of speech targeted solely on > the basis of its > expressive content - 'has never been considered to be protected > activity under the First > Amendment.' Such a categorical rule is without precedent in the > decisions of the Supreme > Court or this Court, and it belies the very real tension between > anti-harassment laws and > the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. We do not suggest, of > course, that no > application of anti-harassment law to expressive speech can survive > First Amendment > scrutiny..We simply note that we have found no categorical rule that > divests 'harassing' > speech.of First Amendment protection. > > > * * * > > "Certainly, some of these purported definitions of harassment are > facially overbroad. No > one would suggest that a school could constitutionally ban 'any > unwelcome > verbal.conduct which offends.an individual because of ' some enumerated > personal > characteristics. Nor could the school constitutionally restrict, > without more, any > 'unwelcome verbal.conduct directed at the characteristics of a person's > religion.' The > Supreme Court has held time and again, both within and outside of the > school context, > that the mere fact that someone might take offense at the content of > speech is not sufficient > justification for prohibiting it." > > > * * * > > "Thus, [the] strictures [of the school's anti-harassment policy] > presumably apply whether > the harassment occurs in a school sponsored assembly, in the classroom, > in the hall > between classes, or in a playground or athletic facility." > > Click here for full text of the opinion > http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/994081.txt > > Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. -- Parents do not have children to serve the state; they do so to create families. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
