It seems to me that "shall not be used for political purposes," isn't very vague...

Femi: The problem with a prior restraint clause like that is that it could be expanded to pretty much cover anything that has a political angle. Say it was a non-profit group or Planned Parenthood conducting a seminar on reproductive health, but it made reference to certain legislation? Would you want some bureaucrat deciding which parts of your speech are excised, or whether you're allowed to use the facilities at all?

It should be easy enough to figure it out, though: see who else has been denied under the district's policy. I only say this as (1) a free speech advocate and (2) somebody who hates unnecessarily "martyring" (i.e. inconveniencing and giving propaganda fodder to) antichoice lunatics unless necessary.

Vanessa,

Actually, I'm really not with you on this one. From the article it doesn't seem that they wanted to use the auditorium to make the middle-schoolers attend some function, but that they wanted to use it after-hours for their own purposes. They should not be denied its use after-hours, if it is opened to anyone else. Otherwise, we're looking at a content-based restriction on speech, which gets you strict scrutiny, which the supreme court has said is "strict in theory and fatal in fact."

-Iz

it would be very interesting to see that list of organizations that have used that facility. even if they say they dont keep that list it wouldn't be hard to put one together.

something seems off about this. if this is indeed simply to just use the facility then I dont see what the problem is. if this a non-profit group then it should be fine. I'm all for anti's speaking out, it usually leads to debate and they almost always come out looking bad.

The school will probably lose. They are opening their facilities to other groups and they have to open them to this one.

I think this is all covered under the Lamb's Chapel decision.

I remember in high school some kind of speaker related to sex ed...everything seemed OK until she pulled some line about "my mom was a rape victim and if she'd had an abortion I wouldn't be here" line. Honestly I don't remember what else she said because I was so pissed that I was locked in an auditorium being forced to listen to that wench.

And my school was usually pretty liberal. We had actual really good sex ed and in class abortion was mentioned in a sort of "this is what it is and this is the process, you can make your own decision if it's right for you" kind of way.

I don't see this as a good thing unless the speaker is planning on using hatespeak, misinformation, or religious indoctrination. Knowing the group, those things are admittedly likely, but they still have the right to gather and discuss as much as any pro-choice group.

The school will probably lose. They are opening their facilities to other groups and they have to open them to this one. Posted by: kathygnome | February 8, 2008 05:01 PM

Ding! Ding!! DING!!! We have a winner. Since government school facilities are tax payer supported and open to other groups to use, the school cannot discriminate against legitimate groups.

However, because they are state affiliated, they probably can't have the school associated with particular groups. If a campaign group wanted to meet their for a particular candidate, the school would have to say no, so that it wouldn't look like it was endorsing that particular candidate by allowing them usage of the building. Same for a pro-choice group/function or an anti-choice group/function.

Femidancer,

Unless they are giving the group access to the students, you are absolutely wrong. If they open up their facilities for public use, they have created a public forum (of some sort, whether limited or general purpose) and they cannot exclude groups for being political or controversial.

Iz

Photos of fake fetuses swimming in red corn syrup are not the sort of things I think I want my 12 year old sister to see.

Not that they'd go as far as the Truth Truck, but it's just as bad; trying to shock little kids like that before they have all the information.

Ah, I see... yeah, it it's being used as a community gathering place in the absence of young, impressionable minds, then I see no problem.

It's been a while since I took First Amendment (and constitutional law has never been my best subject) but the school district's action is absolutely unconstitutional under current First Amendment doctrine. If the school is allowing community groups to use the auditorium for meetings, speeches, and other such events, it's created a public forum, so content-based conditions on the use of the facility will be subjected to strict scrutiny. A "no political events" policy is content-based, and I see no way it could be characterized as narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. (Things might be different if the school district were letting groups give speeches to students as a school event during school hours but that doesn't appear to be what's going on.)

What makes it even worse is that the policy allows for exceptions on a "case-by-case basis". No criteria for these "case-by-case" decisions are specified. The policy thus confers on government officials the kind of "standardless discretion" that the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional on its face.

Also, the actual grounds for the decision were that the group's message was "too controversial". Free speech aw absolutely prohibits the government from discriminating against speakers because they are controversial.

So (assuming I am not misinformed about the facts in some crucial way) Vanessa is simply wrong that the policy is constitutional. Nor, in my opinion, should it be.

It's been a while since I took First Amendment (and constitutional law has never been my best subject) but the school district's action is absolutely unconstitutional under current First Amendment doctrine. If the school is allowing community groups to use the auditorium for meetings, speeches, and other such events, it's created a public forum, so content-based conditions on the use of the facility will be subjected to strict scrutiny. A "no political events" policy is content-based, and I see no way it could be characterized as narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. (Things might be different if the school district were letting groups give speeches to students as a school event during school hours but that doesn't appear to be what's going on.)

What makes it even worse is that the policy allows for exceptions on a "case-by-case basis". No criteria for these "case-by-case" decisions are specified. The policy thus confers on government officials the kind of "standardless discretion" that the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional on its face.

Also, the actual grounds for the decision were that the group's message was "too controversial". Free speech law absolutely prohibits the government from discriminating against speakers because they are controversial.

So (assuming I am not misinformed about the facts in some crucial way) Vanessa is simply wrong that the policy is constitutional. Nor, in my opinion, should it be.

I agree it should not represent a problem if it is not during school hours, and children and faculty are not required to attend. Better than having them gain public sympathy and additional supporters and donations for their martyr act.

Believe me, my visits to anti-choice websites shows that being "denied" their "rights" while the "pro-gay" "feminist" "anti-family" agenda(s) continues to make inroads in schools and society, is a sure way to strengthen their support and gain prayers.

It's been a while since I took First Amendment (and constitutional law has never been my best subject) but the school district's action is absolutely unconstitutional under current First Amendment doctrine. If the school is allowing community groups to use the auditorium for meetings, speeches, and other such events, it's created a public forum, so content-based conditions on the use of the facility will be subjected to strict scrutiny. A "no political events" policy is content-based, and I see no way it could be characterized as narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. (Things might be different if the school district were letting groups give speeches to students as a school event during school hours but that doesn't appear to be what's going on.)

What makes it even worse is that the policy allows for exceptions on a "case-by-case basis". No criteria for these "case-by-case" decisions are specified. The policy thus confers on government officials the kind of "standardless discretion" that the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional on its face.

Also, the actual grounds for the decision were that the group's message was "too controversial". Free speech principles absolutely prohibit the government from discriminating against controversial messages.

So (assuming I am not misinformed about the facts in some crucial way) Vanessa is simply wrong that the policy is constitutional. Nor, in my opinion, should it be.

Hi, elliotreed

I have learned the hard way that I should not continue to hit post while processing my request, or even if a type 500 server error appears. It results in multiple posts.

Argh. Not done.

So anyway, try refreshing the page or back arrowing later to confirm whether or not your post shows. I always copy my posts to clipboard so I don't lose them, just in case.

My sign in keeps kicking me off after a few minutes of inactivity, so I need to go back, sign in, and try again, anyway.

btw, are you another professional from the legal field joining our ranks? Welcome. Your input will be most appreciated.

Again.

As a matter of fact, for about three hours between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., I was unable to access the Feministing site at all. Wha happen?

"I remember in high school some kind of speaker related to sex ed...everything seemed OK until she pulled some line about 'my mom was a rape victim and if she'd had an abortion I wouldn't be here' line."

Now I wonder how many of the boys in the audience inferred "my dad was a rapist and if he hadn't raped I wouldn't be here" from that...

If the facts are as set forth in the above description of the complaint, this suit looks like a slam dunk for the plaintiffs. If the school policy is that "use of school facilities will be granted only when a proposed activity is suited to the available facility," and that "requests to host politically-related events will be handled on a case-by-case basis," without providing specific, objective and mandatory criteria as to which events will or will not be permitted, (which criteria must be unrelated to the content of the speaker's expression,) then the policy clearly violates First Amendment guaranties.

Where a person or group must obtain the permission of a government officialin order to engage in First Amendment protected expression, that is a prior restraint and is presumptively unconstitutional. The speaker's viewpoint does not matter; if an abortion rights advocacy group were similarly denied permission to use school facilities, the same First Amendment problems would be presented.

I agree it should not represent a problem if it is not during school hours, and children and faculty are not required to attend. Better than having them gain public sympathy and additional supporters and donations for their martyr act.free online games