I'm very pro-choice. I'm having a very hard time finding fault with any of the rejected flyers.

Public schools are a hard case when it comes to speech. Students are compelled to go there by law and if the school allows people to protest or campaign they're effectively requiring the other students to hear it, which I suppose is why students have fewer protections than the broader public. (Imagine the hysteria if a women's protest group wanted to post pictures of topless women on the walls to convey their message.)

 

But no matter, free speech ought to be valued and the students are going to have to learn to deal with a diversity of opinions when they are out of school. Instead of censorship schools ought to use the opportunity to teach the students that in a democracy a lot of different views are expressed and they are going to have to learn how to wade through them and disagree reasonably.

 

I also don't know what all led up to this incident or if there is more to the story, so I'll reserve judgement otherwise.

 

The SCOTUS gives public high schools a much broader authority in regulating speech. I'll try to find the cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment)

 

And here you go. Yes it is Wikipedia, yes it explains it in plain English.

There's a post-it note on one of the rejected flyers that says "Signs are to communicate information about meetings, not to promote or persuade." If that standard is applied to all signs by all groups then I don't think there's an issue.

 

The poster on the website that says was approved for other another group is hard to read, but it says "National Speech and Debate Association." I would be curious if that is something sponsored by the school or put up by an independent student group. Either way, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there aren't any political signs being posted on the walls at Ryle and these would have been the exception.

 

Like I said, I'm not a fan of that, but I don't see the evidence that one group is getting singled out based on their content.

The post it response on the flyer states the following, 'signs are to communicate information about meetings, not to promote or persuade.' If that is the policy, then the flyer should say what, where, and when only. Nothing states that they cannot have their club. They just can't have any propaganda on the flyers.

You didn't really answer the "why" question. You just said it's a public school.

 

What is it about public schools that clubs that have a position on an issue should not be allowed?

The fact that Ryle is a public school is reason enough.

 

But, to amplify, what's guiding the Ryle principal is a desire to maintain a quality learning environment at the school. Perhaps he foresees the placement of controversial placards spurring a counter-reaction from pro-choice students at the school, and then he's got a bonafide brouhaha on his hands.

 

For what it's worth, courts have been consistent that, at least on the high school level, the learning environment trumps youthful "free speech." If the youngster's parents find this objectionable, then perhaps they should enroll him in one of the many religious-based high schools in Northern Kentucky, some of which place crosses on their lawns to protest current abortion laws.

The fact that Ryle is a public school is reason enough.

 

But, to amplify, what's guiding the Ryle principal is a desire to maintain a quality learning environment at the school. Perhaps he foresees the placement of controversial placards spurring a counter-reaction from pro-choice students at the school, and then he's got a bonafide brouhaha on his hands.

 

For what it's worth, courts have been consistent that, at least on the high school level, the learning environment trumps youthful "free speech." If the youngster's parents find this objectionable, then perhaps they should enroll him in one of the many religious-based high schools in Northern Kentucky, some of which place crosses on their lawns to protest current abortion laws.

 

If I understand correctly, the principal is OK with the club. He is NOT saying they cannot have a Pro-Life club.

 

If I'm reading you correctly you disagree with him on that. Correct?

If I understand correctly, the principal is OK with the club. He is NOT saying they cannot have a Pro-Life club.

 

If I'm reading you correctly you disagree with him on that. Correct?

I didn't even concern myself with the principal's view on the legitimacy of the pro-life club. Since there is a pro-life club, as well as a Bible club, then obviously these after-school organizations successfully made it past the appropriate gatekeepers among the school's administrators.

 

It simply sounds as if placards have to focus on information, not advocacy.

I didn't even concern myself with the principal's view on the legitimacy of the pro-life club. Since there is a pro-life club, as well as a Bible club, then obviously these after-school organizations successfully made it past the appropriate gatekeepers among the school's administrators.

 

It simply sounds as if placards have to focus on information, not advocacy.

 

I'm trying to figure out exactly what part you have an issue with.

 

If you were principal:

 

Would you allow the club?

What issues would you have with the six flyers that were rejected?

How do you define advocacy vs information when it comes to a flyer?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what part you have an issue with.

 

If you were principal:

 

Would you allow the club?

What issues would you have with the six flyers that were rejected?

How do you define advocacy vs information when it comes to a flyer?

I've answered all your previous questions.

 

I have a question for you: Who's paying for Todd McMurtry to advocate for this Ryle student?

 

Therein lies the motive for all this.

I've answered all your previous questions.

 

I have a question for you: Who's paying for Todd McMurtry to advocate for this Ryle student?

 

Therein lies the motive for all this.

 

If you answered them then I missed them.

 

Your first issue seemed to be because it was a public school. No supporting reasoning given.

 

Then you said you didn't like the advocacy.

 

So I doubt it's just me that isn't clear on what your stance is other than "against it."

 

The "who is behind it" is irrelevant. Why would it matter?

If you answered them then I missed them.

 

Your first issue seemed to be because it was a public school. No supporting reasoning given.

 

Then you said you didn't like the advocacy.

 

So I doubt it's just me that isn't clear on what your stance is other than "against it."

 

The "who is behind it" is irrelevant. Why would it matter?

You seem frustrated because I'm not supplying the answers you desire. That's the downside of this squawk board.

 

The "who is behind it" is indeed relevant. This kid, acting alone, didn't hire McMurtry's law firm at $200 an hour.

 

The Boone County Tea Party has lots of coin.

You seem frustrated because I'm not supplying the answers you desire. That's the downside of this squawk board.

 

The "who is behind it" is indeed relevant. This kid, acting alone, didn't hire McMurtry's law firm at $200 an hour.

 

The Boone County Tea Party has lots of coin.

 

Why is it relevant?

 

Is it relevant when the ACLU funds a student suit against a school?

You seem frustrated because I'm not supplying the answers you desire. That's the downside of this squawk board.

 

The "who is behind it" is indeed relevant. This kid, acting alone, didn't hire McMurtry's law firm at $200 an hour.

 

The Boone County Tea Party has lots of coin.

 

Let me be clear and this has been my stance 100% of the time during my tenure here on BGP.

 

I could give a DAMN what your stance is. 100% irrelevant. Don't care.

 

All I'm EVER interested in is the "why." You are so vague that no one knows the answer to that question.

 

So I'm not looking for anything other than the logic used. If you don't want to give that then don't post.

Why is it relevant?

 

Is it relevant when the ACLU funds a student suit against a school?

 

Agreed. I don't care who is behind a club.