You asked for my opinion. I don’t recall you asking me to defend the decision of a judicial court.
Moreover, as you yourself quoted, the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling specifically stated,
The Court’s Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” (Emphasis added)
I stand by my statement. I might not like what a Satanist or druid says, but I do not consider this sufficient grounds to silence them. Nor did the State of Ohio or the judicial court in question. Their objections pertained to the incitement of lawless action, not the mere expression of religous thanks.
If a Satanist wants to thank Satan, I would support that person’s right to do so. I would find such actions to be distasteful in the extreme, but I recognize his right to express his view. Inciting people to murder or violence, on the other hand, is another matter altogether.
Now, do you honestly think that saying “Thank Allah” or “Thank Buddha” or “Thank Satan” is the same as inciting people to violence or other lawless actions? Do you really hold such an extreme view?
That’s only one of the debates here. As John Mace pointed out, various other hypothetical discussions have since been tossed around. I’m addressing one of them.
Strange. I don’t recall being asked to defend the opinions of “virtually every right wing conservative PAC and pundit.” On what possible grounds do you deem me responsible for their points of view?
FTR, I disagree that all (or even “virtually all”) of these conservatives would deem such speech to be illegal. Distasteful, perhaps, but not illegal – as do I. And even if I’m wrong, I see no reason why I should be legally or ethically required to defend their viewpoints at the expense of my own.
Or should I now hold you responsible for the viewpoints of left-wingers with whom you dissent?
Seriously. Would you be willing to sit there at your child’s graduation, and listen to the Valedictorian say something like "Hail, Dark Spirits who rise from the shadows of the night, we acknowledge your dark power and revel in thy evil. Slay the Christians, and aid us to drink the blood of their babies to the greater glory of Cthulu".
Contrary to your assertions, that statement, read carefully, is clearly not an incitement to violence. It calls upon “Dark Spirits” to slay Christians and help us drink yadda yadda yadda. You took it out of context and attempted to twist it into something it never was. It is offensive. It was intended to be offensive, to illustrate a point you insist on ignoring. As an expression of religious belief, it is entitled to the same legal status as “Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with you”, “Thank Jesus”, “Bright Blessings”, or “Yay for the Flying Purple Unicorn”
I cited SCOTUS authority to support the notion that even if the statement were twisted into what you erroneously claimed it was, it would not qualify as suppressable speach on the grounds of incitement to violence. BTW, I also slam dunked you on the whole immediacy is irrelvant thing you tried to play. SCOTUS seems to think directly otherwise.
No, that is just one of the questions you asked, and I already addressed it earlier. As I said, such as statement would be an incitement to violence. In other words, it is not comparable to a mere ‘Thank Jesus,’ and is arguably illegal for reasons that have nothing to do with any specific religion.
However, you subsequently asked a separate question, namely,
“Would you or would you not extend the same rights to a Satanist (or other minority religion that you find unpleasant) that you demand for a Christian?”
Are you under the impression that I think Christian have the right to publicly call for the deaths of any particular groups or the drinking of infant blood? If so, what in the world gave you that idea?
I oppose Christians calling for such lawless acts, just as I oppose Satanists and Chthulu worshippers doing the same. At no point did I suggest that Christians have any such right. I do believe that they have the right to say “Thank Jesus!” in a valedictory address – and, as I said earlier, I think that worshippers of other religions should have comparable rights.
*Brandenburg v. Ohio * also restricts public speech that is “likely to incite or produce such action.” I believe that such a statement, uttered from a school platform, is indeed likely to incite such behavior.
Morever, as I explicitly said earlier, even if we reject that notion, the point remains that such an injunction is by no means comparable to a simple “Thank you, Jesus!” The two statements are vastly different in tenor, scope and content. Ergo, it is intellectually dishonest to say that if “Thank you, Jesus” is acceptable, so is a plea for the dark spirits to slay Christians and help the speaker drink the blood of infants. Such logic simply does not follow.
Who pays for the printing of the programs, the lights and air-conditioning, the guest speaker, security and the custodians?
I helped one student to receive a diploma despite a principal who refused to grant it since the student had not paid for a yearbook (which he did not receive), prom dues (when he did not attend), and cap and gown (which he did not use). I would say the principal was a mite punitive.
Public school graduations always have a few people who are not free to leave if they are offended – as conditions of their employment. I’m speaking of teachers and staff. Yet the government cannot require employees to attend religious instruction as part of their employment.
I am a Christian who strongly supports separation of church and state. I would not find comments by Wiccans, Buddhists or Hindus nearly as offensive as I have the sermons and services of the extreme fundamentalist right that I have had to sit through in the early days of my teaching career. (The same principals who sponsored those speakers tried to interfere with my private observance of All Saints’ Day and Ash Wednesday.)
Those of you who haven’t gone to school with or worked in a school with religious zealots may not fully understand the soundness of this law.
Schools can always suspend these ceremonial rights such as speaking at a graduation. Graduation exercises are held “at the pleasure” of the Board of Education and the Executive Principal of the high school.
The young woman was told ahead of time what would be allowed and what would not. The school made the choice to stay within the law as best that it could interpret it.
John, the curricumlum in many public schools includes the study of comparative religions and religious texts as literature.
In that thread, or this one? This one seems pretty clearly to be about the specific case. But if you guys found it easier to branch out into attacking a straw man instead of the subject of the OP, carry on then!
Wrong again. You are not understanding Brandenburg. Speach is not illegal under that case if it might provoke a violent response against the speaker, which is what you seem to believe would happen. Speach would be illegal if the speakers words could reasonably be understood to urge the audience to take imminient lawless action against a third party, and it was likely that such action would occur. My statement was an invocation to “Dark Spirits”, not the audience, and it incredibly unlikely to inspire the audience to act in accord with the invocation.
The tenor, scope, content thing is irrelevant. “Hail Satan” = “Hail Jesus” for legal purposes. My statement, for the umpteenth time, was intended to be an extreme example of that principle. You’ve fallen into the trap of focusing soley on the offensive language, and ignoring any argument that doesn’t fit with your rather narrow interpetation of it.
I understand that fully. I simply disagree with you on whether it can be reasonably construed as an urging to take imminent lawless action. Directing the words to “the dark spirits” would simply be a cagey way of phrasing, nothing more.
And as I have repeatedly reminded you, even if we reject that notion, the point remains that your hypothetical statement is by no means comparable to a simple “Thank Jesus!” No reasonable individual would conclude that the two statements are similar in scope, tenor or even intent.
If you’re going to claim that the two statements are comparable, then such considerations most certainly are relevant. That’s just common sense.
Such details are entirely relevant, if one wants to avoid specious analogies. In contrast, avoiding such details is necessary if we want to adopt analogies with tenuous associations. It’s like saying that a Porsche is comparable to a Yugo, simply because they are both automobiles. Or saying that Britney Spears is comparable to Annette Funicello, simply because they’re both female ex-Mouseketeers. The only possible motive for ignoring such distinctions is a desire to avoid their implications.
Wrong again. My point is that the State is not allowed to make distinctions among religions. It does not matter whether the religion is about kittens and happiness, or demons drinking blood. The State may not favor one over the other, or Religion over Non-religion.
Erm… do you understand what an analogy is? Because all of your examples sound like perfectly servicable analogies, depending on what point is being argued.
And I’ve already addressed that – repeatedly, in fact. The problem with your hypothetical statement is the implied violence, not the particular diety that it endorses.
I have pointed this out to you over, and over, and over again. As I said, these are the types of details that one must consider when drawing reasonable analogies… or that one must ignore when drawing specious ones.
As you yourself said, this is “depending on what point is being argued.” In other words, having a common characteristic is NOT sufficient grounds, in and of itself, for declaring the analogy to be valid.
Your own words identify the problem with accepting these analogies uncritically.
And I have repeatedly debunked that claim of implied violence. Even cited SCOTUS authority in support. It ain’t there. It’s never going to be there, no matter how many times you claim it is. You’re tilting at windmills. Great big demonic blood drinking windmills.
I think the part objected to is the “aid us in drinking children’s blood”. The incitement is to the Satanists to drink blood, not the demons.
Not (as I read it) according to Tinker.
That case was about students wearing armbands on school property and during school hours, to protest against the war in Viet Nam. (It was found to be symbolic speech, but I don’t think that matters.)
Now protest inherently contains both an element of expression and of proselytization. You are both expressing that the war in Viet Nam is bad, and calling for others to join you in that belief. The Court held that, providing the speech was not disruptive, the students had the right to express and to proselytize in that fashion. The schools, in other words, did not have the right to set that limitation on the students.
The limitation on the speech of the valedictorian that you mention is not inherent. It is set by the schools. The school is an agent of the state, and the First Amendment expressly forbids the state to set limits on (non-disruptive) free speech and free religion, and, under Tinker, non-disruptive expression and proselytization.
Keep in mind that the First Amendment limits actions only and solely by the state. When it comes to freedom of speech or freedom of religion, the state is forbidden to do anything to limit it in any way, unless they can justify it under the varying levels of scrutiny that have developed. If the speech is disruptive, they can forbid it. If it incites violence, they can forbid it. If some person, acting as an agent of the state, engages in proselytization (apart from the “ceremonial deism” exception I mentioned earlier), they can forbid it. But none of these apply here.
The valedictorian is not advocating violence, nor is she being disruptive. Nor is she acting as an agent of the state. She is acting as a student - indeed, if she weren’t a student, she would not be eligible to be valedictorian. Her status as a student is inherent in the situation. Therefore, she is acting as a student and a citizen, not as an agent of the state. And her rights under the Constitution apply, and the state is forbidden to interfere with them unless they can show that the speech was disruptive and so forth.
If someone can produce a cite showing that students who did not attend the graduation ceremony would not be allowed to graduate, that would be a different matter. In my high school, this was not the case. I know several people who graduated with me who did not attend, for various reasons, and they received their diplomas in the mail and suffered no adverse effects from their non-attendence. Thus no religious coercion is involved.
Well, one of us thinks he knows it. The other one thinks it’s pretty silly.
How does it not matter? Armbands don’t say anything verbally. They don’t interject or interrupt or even compell anyone’s attention. And nothing about them involves the state giving special voice to anyone.
But the students were walking around as students in a way no different than peope walking around on the street. No student was being singled out and given any special forum to express their views. To even try to compare that to the official speaker at a government organized graduation ceremony is stretch and bend reality all out of shape.
Tinker deals with students dealing freely with each other, as equals in an essentialy public forum, not as the school sitting kids down and appointing one and only one student to lecture the others about how they must accept Jesus if they want to get ahead in life.
Of course they apply here, and I bet even you would admit it. Again: are you really arguing that the state can, with no issue, select a speaker and have that speaker read a sermon on the crucifixtion or conduct mass? Obviously, there ARE limits on what you can allow the STATE to do with its forum, the question is just where those limits are (like that W.C. Fields joke, in other words, my dear, we’ve already determined what sort of lady you are, we’re just haggling about the price). While a valedictorian certainly is free to speak and has the right to do so, they don’t have a right for a state sponsored forum to say anything they please. That’s not what Tinker is about at all.
The state did interfere: it created an official school event. It didn’t create a public fora: it created a captive audience and a single point of view to be expressed. That’s why limits arise on what it can do with that.
Football games are completely optional too. But schools still can’t use their facilities to select a single person to lead a prayer over the PA. Again, anyone who wants to is free to pray in whatever groups they wish. But the state can’t be used to give prayer a special place imposed on everyone whether they are interested or not.
Evasive answer. Again, would the right tolerate Muslim prosletyzing? Would you? You might say you would, but we both know that the majority of the people complaining about this case would be on my side of things so fast that it would make your head spin.
Miller starts out with a quote from magellan01 about the specific case, and then responds to it. Most of the subsequent posts then reference the circumstances of this case, including Shodan who singles out the issue of prosletyzing over the mere reference to a deity, which is one of the key elements of this specific case.
Because the Court held that the protections of outright speech also applied to symbolic speech. Read my cite, if you please.
You’re misunderstanding the nature of the situation.
The state only is allowed to prevent religious speech when such speech is made in such a way that might constitute an endorsement by the state of one religion over another (or of atheism over religion), or when people are coerced to participate in some religious ceremony. Neither applies here - the valedictorian is not an agent of the state (if she were, she couldn’t be valedictorian - teachers and random folks aren’t eligible to be valedictorians). Nor is anyone coerced into attending the ceremony. Thus the state may not constrain the exercise of her rights.
Again, I think you are misconstruing the situation.
The school did not appoint the valedictorian to lecture people about Jesus. That would constitute an endorsement. What the school did was to offer the opportunity, available to anyone who qualified, to speak about whatever she liked, providing it wasn’t disruptive. The school does not have the right to engage in content-based censorship, as was found in Tinker.
I am afraid you are incorrect there. They do have the right to say anything they please that isn’t disruptive, or inherently violative of the educational mission of the school.
You are going to have to provide a cite that students were required to attend the graduation before you can start talking about a “captive audience”. As I mentioned earlier, my experience is that this kind of gathering is not only a public forum, in that parents and so forth are invited to attend, but that attendence was optional. If you have information to the contrary, please provide it.
Again, I think you are misconstruing the situation. The school did not choose the valedictorian **in order to **have her pray. They selected her to deliver an address. Then they attempted to censor what she wanted to say, even though it was neither disruptive nor coercive.
Religious speech is singled out for special protection by the Constitution, as you are no doubt aware. The default, as I also mentioned earlier, is that the state may not act against it except in rather narrowly defined situations. This wasn’t one of them. Thus the schools should shut up.
Who gives a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut?
If they try to prevent some Muslim valedictorian from telling everyone that she got that way by following the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh)[sup]TM[/sup], then they are wrong, just like the school is wrong to try to prevent a Christian from doing the equivalent.
Maybe the secularists are only going nuts over this because it was Christian. Maybe they would flip-flop just as fast if it was an atheist saying “don’t kid yourself, there is no God - I did it all myself”. That doesn’t make any difference either.
As Shodan pointed out, your analogy is quite a bit different from the SCOTUS case in question, which invalidates the precedent that you seek to invoke.
Moreover, as I’ve already stated at least three times now, your analogy fails even if we assume that there is no implied threat of violence. So even if the SCOTUS did support your assertion, your claim would be invalid.
Oakminster, you keep insisting that if we accept a relatively benign Christian praise, then we must also accept a more ghastly and abhorrent appeal to Chthulu. This defies all common sense. As Shodan and I have pointed out, the objectionable part of your hypothetical prayer is not contingent on the particular deity that you invoke.
I support the right of a Christian to say “Thank you, Jesus!” just as I support the right of a Moslem to say “Praise Allah!” or a pagan to say “Thank Chthulu!” No inconsistency there.
I do not believe that a pagan should be allowed to say “Dark spirits, slay the Christians and let us drink the blood of their infants!” in a valedictory address. By the same token though, I do not believe that a Christian should be allowed to say, “Yahweh, slay all of the infidels so that we may feast on their warm flesh!” from a school platform. I believe that this comparison is vastly more equitable that the deliberately lopsided one that you insist on pushing.
If you’re going to accuse me of inconsistency, Oakminster, you’re going to have to take a different approach.
No you are: you are trying to conflate students running around speaking freely with the school arranging a ceremony in which a single point of view is delivered, and they give it that special place. Your case simply isn’t on point.
You’re just glibly handwaving away the whole point of the debate. That won’t do. It’s the state that’s arranging all of this. That they hand off the duty of leading a prayer or encouraging Jesus to a student is irrelevant.
This is an important point: we can never know exactly why a school might do anything. People’s motives in cases like these are not commonly very clear. So if a school can do it by accident, they can do it intentionally and have it look like an accident over and over and over.
You keep making this point without answering the meat of the question: can they really say anything they like? Can they lead the audience prayer, for instance? Are you arguing that they can? And if you aren’t, why do you keep saying it? And if they can’t, then the question simply isn’t so black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.
Again, citing Tinker is the legal equivalent of a thread hijack. Tinker isn’t about official school assemblies, its about what kids do on their own to express themselves, without any special state-given place to read their views to others.
Again, I think you are misconstruing the situation. The school did not choose the valedictorian **in order to **have her pray. They selected her to deliver an address. Then they attempted to censor what she wanted to say, even though it was neither disruptive nor coercive.
[/quote]
I think you are very carefully and intentionally avoiding the point and focusing on irrelevancies. In this case, my point was that football games are optional, but restrictions on prayer still apply, so whether or not a school function is mandatory or not seems to have little bearing on captive audience standards. The prayer part is simply the happenstance of the cases in question: yet you focused on that and didn’t even mention the issue of football games being optional.
Isn’t it interesting how when you retell the story, the details always subtly change back to a less interesting case? Again, the apparent case here is a student not just thanking or crediting God, but telling other students that they should as well: and that only being the very start of her remarks in that vein. But when you and Thunder recount the situations for analougies, you both always carefully edit that bit out again even though I keep pointing it out. Intentional? Subconscious?
Sure it does: this case is only being discussed because its supposedly another outrage in the war against Christianity. But just like activist judges, we aren’t dealing with a consistent philosophy of jurisprudence.
