This article quintessentially shows how totally out of kilter things have gotten regarding the First Amendment. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments are interspersed in bold.
--------------------
The First Amendment: "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." Just thought it might be useful to post the contents of the very portion of the Constitution the Butte School District is applying to this situation.
The Butte School District is paying $70,000 in attorney fees for a former Butte High valedictorian who filed a lawsuit after she was banned from speaking at her 2008 graduation because she refused to remove references to religion from her speech. (School policy at the time specified what things this young lady could and could not say. First observation: The school is a government entity, therefore it was engaging in censorship)
The school board was informed during its meeting Monday that the district’s insurer would pay for Renee Griffith’s attorney fees, The Montana Standard reported. Griffith’s lawsuit did not seek monetary damages.
Griffith’s planned speech included the sentence: “I don’t let fear keep me from sharing Christ and His joy with those around me.” (Second observation: The speech that was censored was religious. If we take the position of religious speech haters for a moment, we know that they extend the "Congress shall make no law..." concept into every branch of government at every level, whether regulations, rules, or laws. So that is why a government entity, the school, is placed in this position of deciding what can be said in what context. Even though it is not Congress making a law, the school is a government entity, they say. So if "Congress" now means "government entity, local, state, or national, then we must say that "Butte School District shall make no rule... prohibiting the free exercise thereof," mustn't we? Butte School District must stay out of it! But actually, the First Amendment is a prohibition on Congress, not the School District, so the School District is not obligated to restrict anyone's speech)
Superintendent Charles Uggetti told Griffith she had to remove the references to “God” and “Christ” because religious references were not allowed in graduation speeches. He pointed to a school policy that said “the district may not prefer the beliefs of some students over the beliefs of others, coerce dissenters or nonbelievers or communicate any endorsement of religion.” (Well, how about that. They have a policy. A policy that is patently egregious, that selects certain concepts and ideas for disapproval. Notice how this plays out. The District cannot prefer the beliefs of anyone. But obviously they do not prefer the beliefs of the valedictorian, in fact, they pointedly singled them out for suppression. This only goes to show that the standard of neutrality and tolerance they ostensibly embrace is in itself a built in preference system. If they truly did not want to prefer anyone's speech, they would simply stay out of it and let people speak about what they want.)
Griffith filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau, which ruled in the school district’s favor. A District Court judge also sided with the schools, but the Montana Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in November 2010 that Griffith’s free speech rights were violated. (The Montana Human Rights Bureau is heavily tilted toward the Left. No surprise on their ruling. Contrasting that with the ruling of the Montana Supreme Court is instructive. If the Montana Human Rights Bureau had any self-awareness at all, they ought to be deeply involved in some soul-searching right about now.)
The justices found that what Griffith planned to say did not fall into any recognized situation where it would be permissible to impose a viewpoint-based limitation on free speech. (This is incredibly sensible. The speech the valedictorian was going to engage in did not rise to the level of interest and regulation the District sought to put on it.)
Justice William Leaphart dissented, arguing the intent of Griffith’s speech was seeking to induce others to join her in her religious faith and was, thus, proselytizing. (Not knowing the entirety of Leaphart's remarks, we can only judge based on what's provided here. First point: The Justice is attempting to discern the intent of the speaker. One, this isn't possible. Two, it isn't relevant. Three, it isn't the business of government. Second point: What the speaker might have been inducing does not come to bear on free speech, unless the inducement was to violence. Third point: Proselytizing is not illegal, immoral, or harmful to anyone. None of these activities, or their intent, are any business of the Justice.)
The court ruled Griffith could collect attorney’s fees.
“This is the last part of the Griffith v. School District case,” current Superintendent Judy Jonart said Monday.
(Thankfully the Montana Supreme Court made the right call. But these issues come up time after time, and in other venues the outcome is not so happy. The hostility of government towards religious expression, in the name of neutrality, has gotten to the point where religious expression might be outlawed completely. Doubtless there are advocacy groups that intend just that. However, if there is no freedom of religious expression, there can be no freedom at all. The Founders were very clear on this. Conscience, informed by religion, was the basis of their assumption that a free people could govern themselves. One might rightly wonder if this noble experiment in self-government has failed.)
No comments:
Post a Comment