The ACLU's new cause: jail time for unapproved speech.

[ITR_champion]

In Santa Rosa County, Florida, the ACLU filed a lawsuit alleging first amendment violations. The case lead to further cases and eventual agreements. Among the results, the principal Frank Lay and another administrator, Robert Freeman, may face jail time because they offered a blessing of a new building at the school at a ceremony attended by adults. Another employee, Michelle Winkler, is being prosecuted because she requested a prayer at an event that wasn’t even held on school property. The President of the senior class, Mary Allen, was banned from speaking at this year’s graduation ceremony because she was a Christian, even though it’s customary for the class president to speak at the ceremony. Here’s an article on the case. The information about Mary Allen is not mentioned there; it comes from a Washington Times article from last month.

I have to admit being a little bit puzzled by this. My copy of the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them. The ACLU apparently interprets it as meaning the opposite, namely that the government can imprison and otherwise punish people for their speech or for their religion.

[statsman1982]

If I recall correctly, the penalty of jail time is the result of their violating a court order, not the saying of a blessing per se.

I highly doubt that Mary Allen is being prohibited from speaking solely because she is a Christian, but rather, she was planning on delivering a message that had religious content. I could be wrong, though. I’d appreciate it if you could dig up that link to the Times so I could read it for myself.

I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them.

It has never been interpreted this way. Even under the newly minted Constitution we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Government has always sought to put a few restrictions on speech. That’s why cases arguing the infringement of free speech are still relevant. There are times when the courts have found that speech can and should be restricted. For example, you can’t advocate the killing of the U. S. president without the Secret Service taking a very serious look at you. For another, there is the whole “shouting fire in a crowded theater” argument.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

They’re being proscuted for contempt of court, not for speech.

@ITR_champion

I have to admit being a little bit puzzled by this. My copy of the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them.

Your understanding is erroneous, or at least incomplete. What you’re missing is that these individuals ARE the government. That’s what religionists ALWAYS miss about cases like this. Citizens can say whatever they want, but the government can’t. Public school officials are agents of the government. Public school officials are not allowed to proselytize in their roles as government agents. Do you understand that public school officials are agents of the government? Do you understand the Establishment Clause? The ACLU is helping to ENFORCE the First Amendment, not abridge it. Why do you want the government telling you what God to worship?

By the way, it’s completely irrelevant that these events were attended by adults. The First Amendment protects all citizens from proselytization by the state, not just children.

[Larry_Borgia]

Another view

ETA: to OP and his article, not to respondents.

[DanBlather]

If you look at the case it is about a school that has a long tradition of inserting prayer into school events. The teachers handbook says that teachers are to spread Christian values. No one cares if you pray before school, after school, or at school for that matter if it is not led by school officials and other students practicing their religion are given the same opportunity. I was subjected to Roman Catholic prayers in public school and was very upset because I was a protestant. I was happy the day the SC banned organized orayer in school as I no longer had to choose between going along and offending God (who as we all know is not Roman Catholic) or being the kid in class that was “different” becuase I didn’t say the prayers the same way. Some kids in my class didn’t even believe that protestants were really christians.

Now maybe we should pick which bible to use in school, which version of the 10 commanments to post, which day of the week is the sabbath, and who are real christians. But to my mind the US is such a religious country BECAUSE of separation of church and state, not DESPITE it. England has a state church and they they are much less religious than the US.

The school in Florida displayed bad manners to students of other (or no) faiths, and knowingly defied the law. Where should we stop? Is it OK to have a “moment of handling snakes” before school? Can the Santerias kill a chcicken in assembly? Could an atheist principal start each day by giving a speech on why God does not exist?

[Polycarp]

Mrs. Hedrick was my fourth grade teacher. She was also my fourth grade Sunday School teacher. One of the lessons she taught me (and Gary and Fred and Steve and Sandy and the other kids I went to school and church with) was that her job at school was to teach us, and the Catholic kids, what the school board said she was supposed to teach. And at church she was free to tell us what she believed and thought we should too, but not at school.

IMO, we need more Mrs. Hedricks. She was a woman of faith, but also a woman dedicated to what America has stood for, including freedom of religion.

Too bad she passed away – it sounds like a Washington Times reporter or two could use a lesson in elementary-school-level civics.

[hotflungwok]

Way to go ITR Champion. You’ve not only parroted the intentionally misleading headline so many news outlets have gone with, but you’ve managed to push the lie out just that much further, enabling you to not only play the religious martyr, but also the Constitutional one. Bravo.

First and foremost, the crime here is not prayer, not is it protected speech. The crime is violating a court order. The administrator of the public school was sued for repeated and flagrant violations of the First Amendment, and the out of court settlement included provisions for further violations of the First Amendment.

You know the first Amendment ITR Champion, right? It goes ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ And what this is generally interpreted as meaning is that public run agencies, such as public schools like Pace High School, are not allowed to favor one religion. Lets have a look at the handbook this principal gave, hopefully, to the teachers at the school. It says that they should

embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.

Now does this sound like it might be favoring any particular religion? Maybe the one mentioned by name in the book?

You know what? I hope this guy doesn’t get jail time. I don’t think he deserves it. The incident doesn’t sound like something done ‘institutionally’, it just sounds like a prayer before eating to me. Yes, he might be violating the settlement he agreed to abide by, that’s for the court the decide, but I hope they don’t give him more than a slap on the wrist for it.

Of course, if these headlines are anything to go by, we’d then see stuff like ‘Christianity proven right in court!’ and ‘Prayer allowed in public schools!’. You wanna talk about this case, fine, present the facts and lets have a debate. Don’t walking here and start with the ‘Oh woe is us, for we are beset!’ horsecrap. This whole thing could have been avoided if the guy wasn’t pushing his beliefs down children’s throats in the first place.

[magellan01]

We’ve debated this before, but a valedictorian should be able to share what he or she thinks helped her succeed. If that is God or church or a purely rationalistic, agnostic or atheistic view that she holds important, he or she should be able to share it.

[ITR_champion]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

They’re being proscuted for contempt of court, not for speech.

They were given a court order telling them that they no longer had freedom of speech; now they are being prosecuted for violating that court order. The fact that the process occurred in two steps does not change the fact that they are being prosecuted because of what they said.

Your understanding is erroneous, or at least incomplete. What you’re missing is that these individuals ARE the government. That’s what religionists ALWAYS miss about cases like this. Citizens can say whatever they want, but the government can’t. Public school officials are agents of the government. Public school officials are not allowed to proselytize in their roles as government agents. Do you understand that public school officials are agents of the government? Do you understand the Establishment Clause? The ACLU is helping to ENFORCE the First Amendment, not abridge it.

Since I posted a copy of the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do. It does not say a single word about what a high school principal, teacher, or school board employee can do. The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false. They are not mentioned in the First Amendment, nor the Fourteenth, nor anywhere else in the Constitution. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about restricting any religious activities among government employees or anyone else. Government employees lead religious activities every day. Does not the military have thousands of chaplains, paid by government money, whose duties are entirely religious? Do not numerous departments at all levels have government have chaplains as well? Did not the first Congress have a paid minister to lead prayers? Did not George Washington call on the American people to worship God? Wasn’t he involved in the government in some way?

[Polycarp]

Just a quick emendation to what Hotflungwok had to say. The violation was not tecnically of the First Amendment, though it involved First Amendment rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment. The First protects American citizens against infringement of their freedom of speech and of religion by Congress – and by extension the Administration, which must be authorized to act by Congressional statute except in a very small sphere of activity. The Fourteenth forbids the states, including their creatures the local governments, school districts, and such, from abridging rights of American citizens.

And right there is the problem. Messrs. Lay and Freeman and Ms. Allen are free to speak their minds and practice their religion as private citizens and as members of their churches, on their own time or as employees of their churches. But when they act in official capacities, as officials or employees of a state-chartered body like a public school, they forfeit their right to evangelize and to lead people in prayer, because the rights of the schoolchildren and their parents to freely exercise their own beliefs – or lack therreof – is being infringed, by action taken by a government official. There is no difference in kind, only in degree, between a first grate public school teacher leading her charges in the Lord’s Prayer and the President making his church of choice mandatory on all citizens – in both cases, it’s a public official using the power of the state to compel a religious practice on another.

[ITR_champion]

@statsman1982

I highly doubt that Mary Allen is being prohibited from speaking solely because she is a Christian, but rather, she was planning on delivering a message that had religious content. I could be wrong, though. I’d appreciate it if you could dig up that link to the Times so I could read it for myself.

Here’s the article:

Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school’s May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious.

“She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak,” he said.

This portion of the events at Pace High School is completely omitted from the article that Larry Borgia linked to.

It has never been interpreted this way. Even under the newly minted Constitution we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Government has always sought to put a few restrictions on speech. That’s why cases arguing the infringement of free speech are still relevant. There are times when the courts have found that speech can and should be restricted. For example, you can’t advocate the killing of the U. S. president without the Secret Service taking a very serious look at you. For another, there is the whole “shouting fire in a crowded theater” argument.

Obviously free speech does not include treason, murder, or any other crime. But this case is not about Lay and Freeman committing some other crime by speaking. In their case, we’re told that speaking is the crime. Because they spoke, they were forced to sign a court order telling them not to speak. Then because they spoke again, they may go to jail.

[DanBlather]

Look at the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do. It does not say a single word about what a Mayor, policeman. or school offical can do. The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false. They are not mentioned in the First Amendment, nor the Fourteenth, nor anywhere else in the Constitution. Government employees lead religious activities every day. If the schools want to hire Wiccans to teach kids to ride brooms during recess that is perfectly fine. If they wany teachers to lead kids in praying to Allah that is OK as well. If they want to open up every scool day with a discussion of why God does not exist, and why religion is a bad thing they have that right. As long as a Congressman doesn’t do it himself. If schools want to force Seventh Day Adventists to say the pledge of allegiance, they have that right.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ITR_champion

They were given a court order telling them that they no longer had freedom of speech

No, they were given a court order not to proselytize as agents of the government. In any unofficial capacity, they were free to say whatever they wanted.

Since I posted a copy of the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do.

The jusisprudence is well established on this point. You’re wrong.

The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false.

It is factually established LAW. You flat don’t know what you’re talking about.

Government employees lead religious activities every day. Does not the military have thousands of chaplains, paid by government money, whose duties are entirely religious?

Their services are sought out only voluntarily. They cannot be foisted on those who don’t want them You are incredibly ignorant of the jurisprudence here.

[ITR_champion]

@Polycarp

Just a quick emendation to what Hotflungwok had to say. The violation was not tecnically of the First Amendment, though it involved First Amendment rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment. The First protects American citizens against infringement of their freedom of speech and of religion by Congress – and by extension the Administration, which must be authorized to act by Congressional statute except in a very small sphere of activity. The Fourteenth forbids the states, including their creatures the local governments, school districts, and such, from abridging rights of American citizens.

Here’s what the relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment actually says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So nothing in their extends the Constitution as a whole, or the First Amendment in particular, down to the level of the states, much less to a high school principal. The real purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make certain that the prohibition of slavery in the Thirteenth could be enforced. Those who voted the Fourteenth into law would be completely baffled to see it used to censor high school teachers and other local officials on religious issues. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not use that argument until nearly a century after the Fourteenth was ratified. Hence it’s a case of the court making a law that didn’t exist previously, as opposed to simply enforcing a law that did.

But let me ask you, if as you say state employees only have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech “on their own time”, how do you justify chaplains and all the other obvious cases of government employees hired with religious duties? Should they be prosecuted as well?

[statsman1982]

…how do you justify chaplains and all the other obvious cases of government employees hired with religious duties? Should they be prosecuted as well?

Bolding mine.

We could debate whether chaplains belong in the armed services, or whether a prayer should be said before the opening of the Supreme Court, or any number of other situations in which religion comes up. In some cases, I would agree with you that some of these seem inconsistent with one another. But these are, indeed, separate issues, dealt with by other case law. Let’s stick to the point at hand.

I am sorry, but I think you are failing to understand that the whole reason prosecution is being brought into this at all is that they violated a court order. It has been decided–rightly or wrongly, and some people will still debate this point–that favoring a single religion in a public school setting is overstepping the bounds of what agents of the school can do. Done. Settled. They were ordered not do to this by a court, and they did it anyway. Thus, jail time, again **for violating a court order, **not for praying per se.

ETA (doing this a lot lately with my posts): The Mary Allen issue, I’ll admit, seems a little bit over the top on the part of the administration. In fact, I’m willing to be that if the court order hadn’t been violated, if she did say anything religious at the ceremony, no one would have done more than grumble. But now, thanks to the pseudo-martyrs testing the court’s ruling, she won’t get to speak.

[kaylasdad99]

@statsman1982

ETA (doing this a lot lately with my posts): The Mary Allen issue, I’ll admit, seems a little bit over the top on the part of the administration. In fact, I’m willing to be that if the court order hadn’t been violated, if she did say anything religious at the ceremony, no one would have done more than grumble. But now, thanks to the pseudo-martyrs testing the court’s ruling, she won’t get to speak.

More like didn’t get to speak, as the graduation ceremony took place last May.

There was a religious-themed Baccalaureate ceremony the day before the graduation, IAUI, and she got to speak at that.

But your point is well-taken.

[FinnAgain]

@DanBlather

Look at the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do. It does not say a single word about what a Mayor, policeman. or school offical can do. The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false.

No, actually it’s not.
It’s correct on a factual level because that’s how the law of the land has been interpreted by our highest judicial body.
It’s also correct on a factual level since the first amendment protects citizens from Congress forcing/advocating a religion upon/at them. As such, individual states can also not “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” by forcing/advocating a religion upon/at them.

As schools are official organs of individual states, they too are bound by that.

No, they cannot lead prayers to Allah, or any other religious ceremony. It is a violation of an American’s privileges and immunities to make their own religious choices without the state declaring itself, in one way or another, for one religion or religious view. The idea that individual states can then violate that privilege and immunity but only Congress can’t is neither supported by the facts, nor by the current law of the land which is built on precedent and the rulings of the SCOTUS.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ITR_champion

Since I posted a copy of the First Amendment, you can see for yourself that it only restricts what Congress can do. It does not say a single word about what a high school principal, teacher, or school board employee can do. The idea that the First Amendment restricts public school officials is factually false.

Others have pointed out how terribly wrong you are here. I also want to point out that your idea that the first amendment protects them is also factually false. There are plenty of things my principal could say on her own time (“Mr. Smith is an asshole,” “Our president is an Arab Muslim who wants to destroy America, and we should all oppose him,” “Hail Satan,” “Dear Jesus, please bless this food”) that she may not say while on the government’s dime, or while wearing the government’s mantle of authority.

You want a real travesty to address, how about this: every morning, North Carolina law requires me to pledge allegiance to a flag (a pledge that I find morally offensive), declare that we are one nation under God (a declaration that I find completely obnoxious), and describe our country as indivisible (a description that, these days, I find laughably incorrect). But let’s just focus on the fact that I’m essentially required to affirm a belief in God in front of my students every day, leading them in the same affirmation.

NC law makes an exception to the requirement for students who do not wish to make the pledge, but there is no such exception for teachers.

Now THAT’s a violation of the first amendment.

[Fantome]

@ITR_champion

I interpret this as meaning that any person can say what they want, when they want, where they want, and the federal government cannot stop them. The ACLU apparently interprets it as meaning the opposite, namely that the government can imprison and otherwise punish people for their speech or for their religion.

Since the ACLU isn’t in charge of interpreting and enforcing laws, shouldn’t your grievance be with another agency?

[UltraVires]

At this point, I’ll insert my usual plug for school privatization so as to solve this issue (among others) If schools administrators are no longer agents of the government, then anything goes with respect to religion/no religion and people can vote with their funds.

Don’t like the fact that there is no prayer in your child’s school, then go to the competing one down the road