Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:20:08 -0500 From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Subject: U.S. Court of Appeals: Christian Students Must Be Allowed to Say To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
[Note from Matt: Read the ruling at http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/994081.txt ]
http://www.massnews.com/marsin.htm
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 freedo 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 challengedby 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 speechprohibited 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 therights 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' speechof First Amendment protection.
<snip>
[Read the ruling at http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/994081.txt ]
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/