Tech Support Guy banner

State vs. ??? - Rights of whom???

3618 Views 95 Replies 18 Participants Last post by  Ciberblade
Ok...

Does the state have the right to deny access to one of its programs if it deems a group unfit in its eyes to particpate?

...or...

Does any group have the right to join a voluntary state program?

Since this case germinated in my home state, and since I was prez of the caving club that became the first in the state to participate in its Adopt-A-Highway program, I've been following this case for many years now. Sadly, I can see both sides of this coin, but... this is the KKK we are talking about [yet, where/how do you draw the line? what line can be drawn? and who has the right to even draw a line??? :confused:], and I really abhor what they stand for and their past practices. So, therefore, I would have voted against their "right" to participate. What really irks me also is that the nation's supreme court has gave the right to the KKK by not hearing this case on its merits... by dismissing the case, the KKK won??? BS! :( :mad:

From www.stltoday.com:
Supreme Court won't consider KKK litter cleanup case
By Gina Holland, Associated Press 01/10/2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Missouri lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday over its decision to bar a Ku Klux Klan group from a highway litter cleanup program.

The court's rejection, made without comment, means that the KKK chapter must be allowed into Missouri's Adopt-A-Highway program, which is designed to save money by using volunteers for garbage pickup. Volunteer groups are publicly thanked with signs along the highway acknowledging their help.

Every state but Vermont has such a program. States supporting Missouri in the appeal argued that the Supreme Court needed to intervene so that states unwilling to partner with the KKK would not decide to abolish their programs.

The dispute involves a half-mile stretch of Missouri 21 near Potosi, a town of fewer than 3,000 in the eastern part of the state. [a beautiful part of the state; yet this road, in parts is also termed "blood alley" due to the frequency of accidents on its stretches...]

A KKK chapter sought permission to pick up trash along the road, but was turned down because the program is not open to groups that discriminate based on race or those that courts have said have a history of violence.

Missouri lawyers had argued that a sign marking the KKK stretch of road could lead to more dumping, and could endanger highway workers mistaken for Klan members.

The Klan sued and won on grounds that it had a First Amendment free speech right to participate.

In its appeal, Missouri attorney Erwin O. Switzer III said state leaders are "trying to avoid giving motorists the mistaken impression that the state has anything good to say about a horrific, racist group." He argued that the case was about government speech, not speech of the group.

Robert Herman of St. Louis, the attorney for the KKK, said that the group wants to do its part in community service and to express "solidarity with the community."

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that Missouri's "desire to exclude controversial organizations in order to prevent 'road rage' or public backlash on the highways against the adopters' unpopular beliefs is simply not a legitimate governmental interest that would support the enactment of speech-abridging regulations."

Texas Solicitor General R. Ted Cruz, who filed a brief on behalf of 10 states that backed Missouri, said that states unwilling to partner with the KKK may "forgo the economic benefits of having volunteers pick up tons of roadside trash each year." The 10 states are Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Vermont.

The case is Rahn v. Robb, 04-629.

Some additional history:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/03/05/scotus.kkk.02/
High court allows KKK to adopt a highway
March 5, 2001 Web posted at: 5:40 p.m. EST (2240 GMT)
From staff and wire reports

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday allowed the Ku Klux Klan to participate in a Missouri "adopt-a-highway" program in which volunteers pick up roadside trash and in return receive a sign recognizing their efforts.

Monday's action was not a decision on the merits of the case.

The court turned down without comment an appeal by Missouri that argued the state should be allowed to prohibit the Klan from participating in the program because the organization does not accept blacks and other minorities as members.

The high court also rejected a separate U.S. Justice Department appeal arguing the nation's civil rights laws would have been violated by allowing the Klan to participate in a program run by a state agency that receives federal funds.

Missouri appealed an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said Missouri must allow the Klan to join the highway cleanup program and that the state unconstitutionally rejected the Klan because of its views as a racist organization. Missouri's lawyers said the state had a right to control its own speech and that allowing the Klan to participate would violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibition on racial discrimination in federally funded programs.

Law Professor David Cole, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University in Washington, called it "a stretch" to say the Klan's participation in the highway program violates the civil rights act. "The Klan, like everyone else, can pick up garbage on the highway," Cole said. "They can't be penalized because they discriminate. Lots of groups discriminate. The Boy Scouts discriminate against gays. But when and if they [Ku Klux Klan] engage in criminal conduct or violence, the state should go after them."

Jeff Briggs, a spokesman for the Missouri Department of Transportation, which administers the highway cleanup program, said officials were reviewing the Supreme Court's action.

"It's what I expected right from the beginning. With us it was a purely constitutional issue," said Thomas Robb, national director of the Ku Klux Klan in Harrison, Arkansas. The case began in May 1994 when Michael Cuffley, the top official in the Missouri organization of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, filed an application to participate in the Adopt-A-Highway program by cleaning up a half-mile segment of Interstate 55.

The stretch of highway is one of the routes used to bus black students to county schools as part of court-ordered desegregation efforts in the St. Louis area, a program the Klan opposes.

The state denied the Klan's application. Missouri said nine other states have rejected similar Klan requests: West Virginia, Texas, Ohio, Maryland, Kansas, Georgia, California, Arkansas and Alabama. Missouri cited the Klan's membership, which is limited to "Aryans." The Klan excludes anyone who is Jewish, black, Hispanic or Asian. Missouri also said the Klan violated state and federal anti-discrimination laws, and that it had a history of unlawful violence. :down:

The Klan sued, arguing that its exclusion from the program violated its constitutional rights. A federal judge ruled for the Klan and in March 2000 the 8th Circuit Court concurred.

The 8th Circuit said the state would not violate the federal civil rights law by letting the Klan adopt a stretch of highway. "So long as the state does not deny anyone an opportunity to adopt a highway on an improper basis, the state does not violate Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]," the appeals court said. The court said the Klan, as one of many voluntary participants in the highway beautification program, is free to determine its own membership.

"Requiring the Klan essentially to alter its message of racial superiority and segregation by accepting individuals of other races, religions, colors, and national origins in order to adopt a highway would censor its message and inhibit its constitutionally protected conduct," the 8th Circuit wrote.

The appeals court also rejected Missouri's discrimination-related reasons.

The court wrote that "the state has never denied the application of any other group on the grounds of discriminatory membership. A quick glance down the list of participants in the Adopt-A-Highway program, however, reveals many adopters that have discriminatory membership criteria. For example, it is commonly known that the Knights of Columbus, a venerated service organization that has chapters adopting many stretches of highway across the state, limits its membership to Catholic men."

In the appeal acted on Monday, Missouri's lawyers said the Constitution's free-speech guarantee protects the state from having to post signs "suggesting that the state approves of, and is grateful for, the Klan's participation" in the program.

The Klan's lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union said the First Amendment protects the organization "against those who would misuse government power to suppress political dissidents."

A group of 28 states supported the appeal, saying the highway sign conveyed more than information, or even thanks. "It also implies a message of acceptance, a message that the state regards the Klan as a valuable member of society just like the Rotary Club or the Jaycees who have adopted the next stretch of highway down the road," the states said.

The 8th Circuit said the First Amendment protects everyone, "even those with viewpoints as thoroughly obnoxious as those of the Klan, from viewpoint-based discrimination by the state."

The court added, "There are better ways of countering the Klan's repellant philosophy than by the state's engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination. In a myriad of constitutionally sound ways, state officials and private citizens alike may oppose the Klan's racially divisive views and express disapproval of those views in the strongest terms. [ok, like passing motorists will now chuck trash at workers and/or maybe extra garbage along that route?]

"But viewpoint-based exclusion of any individual or organization from a government program is not a constitutionally permitted means of expressing disapproval of ideas -- even very poor ideas -- that the government disfavors."
See less See more
1 - 15 of 96 Posts
Linksy - :up:, but... ;) to play the advocate of the devil here... I guess I don't see this as a "right to free speech" issue. :confused:

The First Amendment states "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." per: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Now, how does this guarantee a group the privaledge to participate in a state-sanctioned program, one that is completely voluntary, and brings no revenue, and no "speech" per se, to the group itself?

For reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html
first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the based on an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.
See less See more
IK - ok, I'll give ya that, but, just for the sake of a good ol' friendly debate/discussion... ;)

If they wanted to assemble to protest, march, meet, etc., they can still do that, right? State is not saying that they can't do that. State is also not saying that they can't choose who their members are. Guess my take is that this is a voluntary program, put on by the state, that allows one to pick up trash, upon state and/or federal property.

I don't know. Guess one of my heartburns about this is also that, esp. now, is that I live in an area where the KKK until just a few short years ago [like 2-5, depending on what town we are talking about] was still standing in street intersections, such as the Lion's Club, etc., in full satin robes, hoods, etc. collecting funds. :down:

Yes, I will agree that they are being discriminated against. But, does any group then, no matter how vile, what their initials where, etc. then also have the "right" to participate in this, or similar, programs? For example, and excuse me here, but just to explain my point, lets say that there is a group whose acronym would be not too nice to say in front of a lady... Dudes Are Mean and Nasty, or the such - would do worse, but trying to keep this PG-13. ;)
See less See more
SepiasSoul - the answer to that query is in line w/ what Raeli replied with, and I was fixin' to post until I read his... ;) To the state of Missouri [MO = Missouri :)], in this case, that was one of their beefs - that this sign would be there, proclaiming to all that went past that the KKK was partnering w/ the state to clean up trash on state/fed property.

Now, as I mentioned in my earlier posts, I am torn - torn between the right of the state to "pick and choose" [as pointed out above regarding another state, thanks!] vs. the right of any group to participate, no matter how vile, etc. "we, the peoples" may think they are.

Matter of fact, I actually took the side of the KKK in a discussion I had tonight on way to cavers club meeting. My "side" said, ok fine, lets say that "we" don't let the KKK join. Fine. However, then whom are we to decide who gets to join our program, where is the line drawn??? Ok, what about the Boy Scouts [I was/am an Eagle, so I can pick on 'em ;)]? The are prejudiced against gays, should we allow their dislike of another group of society to weigh in our decision to not let them join our program?

But, IF you don't draw a line, somewhere,,, then that means that ANY group can join??? [forgetting for the sake of this argument that the state doesn't have a law to allow them to be able to pick and grin and choose]. FWIW, I do believe that MO did indeed redo their requirments, but the KKK brought against the state another suit. Maybe third time is the charm?
See less See more
g'evening iltos! :)

Ok, what about the following discussion:
http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ177-2/772-557.pdf
In the 2nd paragraph, the article discusses that the Court has decreed there be three separate "forums" regarding right to free speech, and thereby the Court has specified different rules for speech expressed within each forum:
1. the traditional public forum,
2. the limited or designated public forum,
and
3. the nonpublic forum.

HOWEVER... now look, for example, in paragraph four:
"While the Court has explicitly described the limits a government may place on speech in each type of forum, the Court has offered lower courts virtually no guidance in determining what analysis applies to any given location. The courts do not know whether to define the location scrutinized broadly or narrowly. Therefore, they do so indiscriminately, based, at least in part, on the decision they wish to reach.

And now, paragraph five:
The public forum doctrine has proved unworkable in practice. This difficulty became clear in the recent Adopt-A-Highway Cases in Missouri, Texas, and Arkansas. In these cases, four different federal courts, confronted with three substantially similar programs, approached the public forum doctrine in fivedifferent ways. Therefore, the courts reached threedifferent decisions regarding the type of forum at issue.

There are a bunch of juicy parts to this document, esp. down near pages 575 and such, but... its late. ;)
See less See more
iltos, and others foolish enought that may be interested... try this link instead:
http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/77-2/772-557.pdf Sorry about that :(

SepiasSoul, again, good point, but my argument is that equating prisoners w/ the KKK is not on the mark, IMHO, in regards to this case. I have no problem at all w/ prisoners doing work to keep their hands from being idle, and/or from them contributing to society in some manner [that issue of my taxes paying them to watch TV, etc. is fodder for another thread ;)]. I just have an issue that the KKK can have a sign proclaiming their name along a highway - and for the most part, they are only adopting in areas where they know durn well their name will provoke fear, hatred, and the such. In my warped mind, if they really really just only cared about particpating in a clean-up program, there are many many miles of highway available - yet,,, they just have to pick these areas? :sarcastic:
LAN - lol! ;) I think you're in NW arkysaw? Potosi area from Branson, by memory, I think is about 3-4 hours, depending if take bruise bugs along the scenic lower route [through the Ozarks] or if you kill bugs on the interstate [I-44]. Will meet ya there! :up:

iltos, good, very good points. Thanks! :)

IK, I hear and understand your points, esp. the "This is freedom of assembly and association. You don't have to like it. You don't have to believe in it. But you sure as hell have to accept it if you want to live with the freedoms we have now." but... ;) I still don't that that is a valid argument in this particular case - NOONE is saying that they can't assemble of their own accord. NOONE is saying that they can't associate w/ like-minded peoples. Yes, that is their "right". However, does any and every person, NO MATTER WHAT, have the "right" or "priviledge" to participate in a voluntary state-sanctioned activity? I agree w/ the previous poster, that maybe to get around this, MO and other affected states need to do as Maryland (?), and create even stricter rules. Please do not get me wrong - I am a very firm believer in individual rights. State exists only to serve and protect the society, IMHO. The individual rules. Or, as that saying goes, give me freedom or give me death. That is my mantra too. Yet... while as much as I would love to hear my man George Carlin sing his nasty words on the radio, I don't think they should be there during "daylight" hours. No need for a kid to hear that - one reason why Bob and Tom, etal, are never on around my boys. So, I guess my point is that, yes, there are rights, but there are also priviledges, and some common sense that must be used. And what makes this all worse tho' is as the post I linked to and to which iltos commented upon, our friggin' judicial system has convoluted the intent, the meaning, the interpretation of these "laws of the land" in so many ways, depending how the winds are blowing at the moment and by whom. Ok, end rant... for now. ;)
See less See more
iltos :up:
add: rapists, and you have a good trifecta.
Yet... ticks have to be up there somewheres too... ;)
April 29, 1992 by Sublime http://sublimespot.com/sublime/about/

April 29th, 1992 there was a riot on the streets
Tell me where were you were sittin' home watchin' your tv
While I was paticipating in some anarchy
First spot we hit it was the liqour store
I finally got all the alcohol I can't afford
Red lights flashin' time to retire
Then we turned that liquor store into a structure fire
Next stop it was the music shop,
It only took one brick to make the window drop
Finally we got our own p.a.
Where do you think I got this guitar that you're hearing today
When we returned to the pad to unload everything,
It dawned on me that I need new home furnishings
So once again we filled the van until it was full
Since that day my livin' room's been more comfortable
Cause everybody in the hood has had it up to here
It's getting harder and harder and harder each and every year
A girl went in the store with her mother and her kids
And I saw her when she came out she was gettin some pampers
They said it was for the black man
They said it was for the Mexican
But not for the white man
But if you look at the streets it wasn't about Rodney King
It's bout this ...snip... situation and these ...snip... police
It's about coming up and staying on top or screamin' 187 on ...snip...
It's not written on the papers, but its written on the wall
National guard smoke from all around
Gimme my share
Gimme my share, I want it, gimme my share
I need it now - I need it now
But there's a wicked one who doesnt wanna see me go
Just gimme my share - I want it
But you dont wanna give it to me
You don't want to see me go
Gimme my share - I want it
Gimme my share
But there is a wicked one - a wicked one - a wicked one
A wicked wicked one who doesn't wanna see me go
He wants to hold it
He want to hold it oh yah
He wanna wanna wanna hold it
But a - but hey
Wanna hold it wanna wanna hold it
Let it burn let it burn let it burn burn burn
See less See more
Now, getting back to court rulings, and how THAT is such a mess. Check out how since the June '04 ruling, how so many lower courts now have such a wide disparity of verdicts, all because the SC hinted that guidelines that govern federal sentencing MAY be unconstitutional.

One link is: http://www.november.org/Blakely/

Another is: http://www.sentencingproject.org/booker-fanfan.cfm

One example: Judge A does NOT sentence any defendent unless they ask for it!, whereas w/in the same building, Judge B hands out two sentences to every defendent, based on two different rules. :confused: :(

Of course, this is not exactly the topic of this thread... Can I hijack my own thread? :)
Coming back to the subject of the a group [such as the KKK] having the right to join a state sanctioned program:

http://www.state.de.us/attgen/main_page/opinions/1996/ib0896.htm
Has various rulings about groups' activities upon public lands...

- and -

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_GoodNewsMilford.htm
In August of 1992, the Milford Central School District adopted a policy allowing district residents to use school facilities for "holding social, civic and recreational meetings and entertainment events and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community, provided that such uses shall be nonexclusive and shall be open to the general public," and otherwise conformed to state laws.

The policy expressly prohibited the use of school facilities for religious purposes and required that applicants certify that their proposed use complies with the policy:

School premises shall not be used by any individual or organization for religious purposes. Those individuals and/or organizations wishing to use school facilities and/or grounds under this policy shall indicate on a Certificate Regarding Use of School Premises form provided by the District that any intended use of school premises is in accordance with this policy.

The Good News Club is a community-based Christian youth organization open to children between the ages of six and twelve. The purported purpose of the Club is to instruct children in moral values from a Christian perspective. It is affiliated with an organization known as Child Evangelism Fellowship, which is dedicated to converting even the youngest children to their brand of conservative Chrsitianity.

The local Good News chapter in Milford requested use of school facilities for meetings, but was denied. After they appealed and requested a review, Superintendent McGruder and counsel determined that...

...the kinds of activities proposed to be engaged in by the Good News Club are not a discussion of secular subjects such as child rearing, development of character and development of morals from a religious perspective, but were in fact the equivalent of religious instruction itself.

Court Decision

The Second District Court upheld the school's refusal to allow the club to meet.

The Good News Club's sole argument was that the First Amendment dictates that the Club cannot constitutionally be excluded from use of the Milford Central School facilities. The Court, however, found in both law and precedence that restrictions on speech in a limited public forum will withstand First Amendment challenge if they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

According to the Club, it was unreasonable for the school to argue that anyone might be confused to think that their presence and mission were endorsed by the school itself, but the Court rejected this argument

...but...

The Supreme Court reversed the above decision, finding that by allowing other groups to meet at the same time, the school created a limited public forum. Because of this, the school is not permitted to exclude certain groups based upon their content or viewpoints:

When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment.

- and -

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/ten/bldec_DiLoretoDowney.htm
Can a school refuse to publish or post a paid religious message if it allows other paid messages and advertisements? Can the school refuse to publish or post any paid messages at all in order to avoid having to include religious messages?

Background Information

In 1995, Downey High School's Baseball Booster Club raised funds with ads from local businesses. The ads were posted on the school's baseball field fence for a $400 donation. Mr. DiLoreto, Chief Executive Officer of Yale Engineering, purchased an ad using a long message and listing the Ten Commandments. Mr. DiLoreto then revised his proposal to be less wordy.

Mr. Layne, the principal of Downey High School, refused to post the sign and the Booster Club refunded Mr. DiLoreto's donation. The refusal to post the sign was based on:

* concern about running afoul of the Establishment Clause;
* and disruption, controversy and expensive litigation that might arise from community members seeking to remove the sign or from religious or political statements that others might wish to post.

The Attorney General's Office decided that refusing to post an otherwise appropriate advertisement which merely included a religious message was not legal. So, on October 3, 1996, the District discontinued the program entirely and removed around forty other signs already posted on the fence.

Court Decision

Both a Superior Court judge and the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school district. In November, 1999 a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district did not violate DiLoreto's rights. The judgment of the district court was that a public school district's refusal to post a paid religious advertisement on school property where commercial advertising was permitted did not violate the free-speech rights of the advertiser.

Thus, according to the court, it was not unconstitutional for the school to close the forum in response to DiLoreto's ad. The government has an inherent right to control its property - and that includes the right to close a previously open forum. Closing the forum was a permissible solution to the dilemma caused by concerns about providing equal access while avoiding the appearance of government endorsement of religion.

Significance

This decision agreed that schools can and should control the material posted on its property in an effort to avoid any implication that it is endorsing specific religious ideas. Thus indirect endorsement of certain speech was found to be just as important as direct endorsement.
See less See more
Ciber: "Hobbes ~ Actually in the song (if I remember correctly) He says April 26th."

I've only heard the song a couple times on the radio. Never paid much mind to the date while he sung, just found the lyrics so those interested could read/see 'em during this discussion. :) CB, seriously, glad to hear that you survived; condolences on your and all other's loss during that stupid time. :( Your last statement, I hope that you don't think that hobbes rides on high horses? I don't. ;)
Going back to my post #59, is there not at least a partial similarity between this decision and the relationship between the KKK's battle w/ the states over allowing this group to participate in that state-sanctioned program?

http://atheism.about.com/library/de...oretoDowney.htm
Can a school refuse to publish or post a paid religious message if it allows other paid messages and advertisements? Can the school refuse to publish or post any paid messages at all in order to avoid having to include religious messages?

Background Information

In 1995, Downey High School's Baseball Booster Club raised funds with ads from local businesses. The ads were posted on the school's baseball field fence for a $400 donation. Mr. DiLoreto, Chief Executive Officer of Yale Engineering, purchased an ad using a long message and listing the Ten Commandments. Mr. DiLoreto then revised his proposal to be less wordy.

Mr. Layne, the principal of Downey High School, refused to post the sign and the Booster Club refunded Mr. DiLoreto's donation. The refusal to post the sign was based on:

* concern about running afoul of the Establishment Clause;
* and disruption, controversy and expensive litigation that might arise from community members seeking to remove the sign or from religious or political statements that others might wish to post.

The Attorney General's Office decided that refusing to post an otherwise appropriate advertisement which merely included a religious message was not legal. So, on October 3, 1996, the District discontinued the program entirely and removed around forty other signs already posted on the fence.

Court Decision

Both a Superior Court judge and the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school district. In November, 1999 a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district did not violate DiLoreto's rights. The judgment of the district court was that a public school district's refusal to post a paid religious advertisement on school property where commercial advertising was permitted did not violate the free-speech rights of the advertiser.

Thus, according to the court, it was not unconstitutional for the school to close the forum in response to DiLoreto's ad. The government has an inherent right to control its property - and that includes the right to close a previously open forum. Closing the forum was a permissible solution to the dilemma caused by concerns about providing equal access while avoiding the appearance of government endorsement of religion.

Significance

This decision agreed that schools can and should control the material posted on its property in an effort to avoid any implication that it is endorsing specific religious ideas. Thus indirect endorsement of certain speech was found to be just as important as direct endorsement.
See less See more
LANMaster said:
Interesting. I know the term "****" is short for Hebrew, but what is the origin of **** ???
Not reallllllly sure what any of this crud has to do with the main intent and purpose of this thread :mad: [durn hijackers! :p ], but, to answer Mike's query: ;)

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/11-Miscellaneous/section-14.html
There are many explanations:
* One explanation is that the word **** originates from the word
"keikl", in Yiddish, which means "circle". At Ellis Island, one of
the main immigration checkin points, immigrants were intially
grouped by religion and language in order to make it easier for
them to communicate with each other and also to be identified more
quickly by waiting relatives there to meet them. Christians were
marked off with an 'X' which was likely really supposed to be a
cross; Jews were marked with a circle which was really likely
supposed to be the Star of David. It is easy to see how the staff
could become sloppy at drawing these symbols as 'x' and 'o'. The
word "keikl" was used by the Jews making fun of the poorly drawn
star; they referred to each other as being 'circles'.
Unfortunately, from this innocent usage, the term aquired a
derogatory meaning.
Robert L. Chapman's "American Slang" has a slight variation on the
above. Rather than saying the circle was a mark made by the staff
to symbolize the Star-of-David, the book says: "Jews who could not
sign their names would make a circle." This suggests that it was
Jews themselves who started using the circle- presumably to avoid
the X which was reminiscent of a cross.
* According to "Our Crowd", by Stephen Birmingham, the term **** was
actually coined as a putdown by assimilated American German Jews
for their Eastrern-European bretheren: "Because many Russian
[Jewish] names ended in 'ki', they were called '*****'- a German
Jewish contribution to the American vernacular. (Germans are also
said to have invented the term "Bohunk", referring to Jews from
Bohemia.)". Following this explanation, the name **** was
deliberately coined to put-down Jews- but only a certain subset of
Jews. The name then proceeded to be co-opted by Gentiles and used
against all Jews in general.
* Robert L. Chapman's "American Slang" also notes that the word
could be a reference to "Ike", a nickname for Isaac.

FWIW: all such terms are not nice, IMHO. :down:
See less See more
LANMaster said:
Thanks Hobbes. Sorry for the hijack. :eek:

I hadn't heard the term before.
Not a problem! Its alllll good! ;) Was just messing with yas... :)

FWIW: another not pleasant term that is rarely used/seen, but still in use in some areas to denigrate those of Jewish heritage is "******". Terminology and the heritage of words are of interest to me, so have a little collection of the such... ;)
1 - 15 of 96 Posts
Top