Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's yet another example of a school administration completely missing the point of the First Amendment and violating the free speech rights of students because they don't understand either the free speech clause or the establishment clause. A student in Bridgeport, New Jersey is suing the schools there for not allowing her to participate in a one-day anti-abortion protest.
Oct. 20th was the date of the Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity, a protest by students that is identical in form to the Day of Silence that seeks to speak out in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians. The students who wish to participate remain silent during the day except when called upon in class. Some of them wear tape over their mouths. They also hand out pamphlets advocating their views.
According to the complaint (PDF) in this case, the plaintiff (referred to only as C.H. in the court papers to allow her to remain anonymous) asked the school for permission to engage in this protest and was told no:
38. Plaintiff requested permission from school officials to participate in the DOSS over two weeks before the event was to occur.39. She also supplied school officials with a copy of the flyer that she wished to distribute.
40. It was not until the day before the event that school officials denied her request.
41. She was told by school officials that her request was denied because nothing "religious" was allowed at a public school.
42. After she was denied, Mr. Hudak followed up with Defendant Lynch in an attempt to secure permission for his daughter to engage in her religious speech at school.
43. He too was rebuffed.
44. When Mr. Hudak told Mr. Lynch that they would be contacting a legal firm, Mr. Lynch warned Mr. Hudak that as a parent he should make an informed decision for his daughter because a wrong decision could affect her grades and performance at school.
At that point, the family got an attorney who sent a letter to the school demanding a chance of policy and telling them that they were wrong on the legalities. The school has apparently never even responded to that letter, which prompted the lawsuit. This school needs to get a clue, and fast, about the First Amendment, or they're going to end up losing a big judgment.
Of course, I'm sure we won't hear any complaining from the STACLU crowd about the big bad ADF coming in to local communities to intimidate them with threats of lawsuits and costing them money. You won't hear any complaining from me either because if the government violates your rights, you shouldn't have to pay the cost of getting those rights restored. But only one of us is being consistent.
Politics
Comments
I can't open the PDF file w/either browser I use. If someone happens to retrieve and skim through it, I'd appreciate knowing the grade level of the subject student.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 20, 2009 9:24 AM
The Complaint is quite well-drafted.
I also suspect that the school system's lawyers have attempted to explain to the principal and the superintendent why they are wrong, but were ignored (as seems usual in these cases) by a handful of people who sincerely believe that they can do whatever they choose to do in their own little "fiefdom."
Frankly, school administrators have never grasped the concept that students have any freedom of speech whatsoever; nor have they ever grasped that diverse viewpoints are to be tolerated and even encouraged in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society.
Stifling the speech of those with whom you disagree is simply not permissible ... C.H. has a fundamental right to be heard, and it does not matter if the message she chooses to share with classmates is based on a religious point of view.
Prior restraint of speech because the authority figure believes that the speech may lead to some level of conflict or disruption in the future is especially problematic.
After all, it is always possible to claim that the stifled speech may lead to fuure disruption! The right to be heard trumps such hypothetical concerns about future events that may or may not occur.
-
The First Amendment - It's not just a good idea, it's the Law!
-
Posted by: threetorches | November 20, 2009 9:49 AM
We need the trolls from the previous ACLU thread to come over here and eat some crow. Treasonous indeed. Defending your rights regardless of political or religious position is a bedrock of the BoR and the hallmark of ACLU action. I do hope C.H. gets a clue and ameliorates her position but she is well within her rights in expressing it.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 20, 2009 9:49 AM
Michael,
Doesn't look like it gives the student's grade level in the complaint. Identifies her as a student in a 9-12 high school, but beyond that I didn't see anything in the complaint that gives her actual grade level.
I would agree that this appears that the school screwed up, except there are a couple of points that suggest that there are bones of contention. First the plaintiff insists that the school administration told her that her activities would not be allowed because they were religious. The school has a number of reasons why they could reject the fliers, without their response I am a bit reluctant to just take her word for it. Second, it says she wanted to distribute the flyers "in school." It doesn't say when or how, if she were to do so during class that would be disruptive, if she didn't make it clear that it would be during passing time, lunch, etc., that would be a valid and legitimate reason to not allow the distribution of fliers (IE class disruption). Again, I have no idea how she phrased anything, etc., I'm just not willing to accept the plaintiff's word unchallenged. Finally, there is a weird complaint added to the list about a two day absence that was denied excused status solely because of administration saying "no." It seems a little weird for this case, almost a "throw shit against the wall and see what sticks" approach in the complaint.
If the scenario, as presented by the plaintiff, is accurate and what happened, then I agree, the school totally screwed up. Unfortunately we've seen dozens, perhaps hundreds of these cases where the religious BS their side of the story and it turns out that they wanted special access, the right to disrupt classes, etc. I honestly have no idea if this is the case, but it has happened often enough that I'd like to see the defense reply before taking sides.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 20, 2009 9:51 AM
Michael Heath:
The grade level is never mentioned, other than it's a (grades 9-12) High School.
Posted by: strech | November 20, 2009 9:53 AM
I didn't look too close, admittedly, but I couldn't see any age listed. Ironically enough, although it listed her initials for "anonymity" it also listed her address. So I'm not sure how anonymous she could be. And it also indicates she's a high school student.
Beyond that, I got nothin'...
Posted by: Geds | November 20, 2009 9:53 AM
Michael Heath - it only says that C.H. is a minor and a student without indicating any grade level. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 10:00 AM
I fully support and encourage the First Amendment rights of anti-choice activists to wear tape over their mouths and not speak. For as long as they want, anywhere they want. It's all about their freedom of choice.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 20, 2009 10:01 AM
Michael @ 1:
Have you tried downloading the PDF and then opening it with the standalone reader? (i.e., right-click the link, choose "save link as" or something similar)
Posted by: Ivan | November 20, 2009 10:02 AM
“They also hand out pamphlets advocating their views.” So if you are not allowed to hand out Gideon’s bibles in school, why would you be allowed to hand out these pamphlets if the advocate a particular religious viewpoint?
Posted by: Chilidog | November 20, 2009 10:10 AM
@Gingerbaker
Thumbs up!
Posted by: Abstruse | November 20, 2009 10:13 AM
@Gingerbaker
Make that two thumbs up!
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 20, 2009 10:21 AM
Chilidog @ #10:
IANAL, but here's my interpretation.
The question comes down to who's doing the distributing. If a student wants to distribute Bibles, on his/her own, that's okay. It's only when outside groups are invited in that there are issues.
(Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 20, 2009 10:23 AM
I don't fully understand either but going by what Ed has written previously, the issue with the Gideon's is that schools are not allowed to give outside groups special permission to come into school hand out religious stuff because that permission looks like the school endorsing the religion. When the person doing the handing out is a student who would be in school anyway the issue of special permission to be there for religious reasons doesn't come up.
Posted by: Matty | November 20, 2009 10:23 AM
Chilidog wrote:
You really don't see the difference between allowing a religious group from outside the school to come in to a public school classroom to hand out Bibles and a student at the school handing out pamphlets to their classmates in the hallways between classes?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 20, 2009 10:24 AM
Ok then how about: Is there a difference between a fast food joint coming in to a school to distribute pamphlets saying their product is delicious and a student distributing pamphlets trumpeting how tasty the fast food joint's products are to eat? - DJ
------------------
Note: this is only a hypothetical designed to test the edges of the policy of allowing distribution of pamphlets within schools, not an argument over this specific case, which I agree is clear-cut.
Posted by: Dingojack | November 20, 2009 10:34 AM
Could a student stand in the hallways between classes and hand out Gideon Bibles to her classmates?
Posted by: chris | November 20, 2009 10:36 AM
Dingojack wrote:
A school could probably prohibit both on the grounds that it is advertising rather than advocacy speech. Such a rule would be viewpoint-neutral and would likely be upheld by the courts.
Chris wrote:
Yes. That's the difference between government advocacy and individual advocacy. By allowing the Gideons to come in to a classroom (and no one else), the school is de facto endorsing what they're doing because they haven't established a limited public forum allowing all groups to do so (and because it isn't curriculum-related; there's a special set of rules for what can go on in a classroom during instructional time, as distinct from in the hallways between classes). Students, on the other hand, can hand out literature to their classmates and there is already a limited public forum -- because another student could just as easily decide to hand out something opposing it. And in neither case could it reasonably be considered government speech.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 20, 2009 10:46 AM
I read some news coverage that makes the school sound a bit more reasonable (but still probably wrong). They said she could do the silent protest as long as it didn't interefere with class work. She couldn't wear an armband because they have a dress code. And she couldn't hand out pamplets. I don't think the first two restrictions are automatically unconstitutional.
As for the third (the pamphlets), it may or may not be a violation depending on whether they permit other students to hand out pamphlets for non-religious things. But I agree with most of the posters here that the school almost certaintly does allow other students to hand out pamphlets, making their treatment of her a violation of her rights.
Posted by: eric | November 20, 2009 10:48 AM
Correction to my previous post:
Only when an outside group is distributing literature, or when the teachers or administrators are doing so, is there a problem.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 20, 2009 10:55 AM
You mean the anti-choice faction has one day a year when they all agree to shut up and NOT call the rest of us god-haters and baby-killers? We should ALL take them up on that offer, and encourage them to have more such days, not less.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 20, 2009 10:58 AM
eric wrote:
Actually, one of the key precedents in this area involves the question of wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam war. The school cannot prevent that form of expression by students under the First Amendment, dress code or no dress code.
No, the school could not prevent all literature being handed out by students either. This is presumed to be a traditional public forum.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 20, 2009 10:59 AM
Ed: In Hazlewood the school had banned all distribution of printed materials on school grounds, and the Supremes upheld, using the non-public forum theory. The school had no power over the distribution on the sidewalk across the street from the school. The Court in Hazlewood explicitly said they were not altering Tinker, however.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 20, 2009 11:29 AM
I have heard some people attribute bad decisions made by schools such as this one to the idea that the lie put forward by some religious groups that "prayer has been outlawed" has been spread so successfully that school administrators now believe it and attempt to enforce it.
What are your thoughts on this?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 20, 2009 11:45 AM
I’m not sure that there is a distinction between an outside group and a student. The school has the right to enforce certain rules of conduct, weather it is in the classrooms, in the halls between classes or at the football games. It shouldn’t make any difference.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the act of handing out pamphlets as opposed to merely making ones views known is a distinct activity that the school is within their rights to control, just as they would be within their rights to control/ discipline someone for shouting in the halls. A pamphlet is a physical object. The school will have to deal with all the discarded pamphlets tossed about the premises.
A school is NOT a public forum.
Someone suggested that since they allow other students to pass out pamphlets that they should allow this. I disagree. There is a big difference between the school allowing someone to pass out pamphlets asking for people to join the Glee Club and pamphlets advocating a religious or even a political viewpoint.
Again, if the school can forbid, for instance, someone wearing a T-shirt with a particular viewpoint printed on it through the use of a dress code, then they have the right to forbid the handing out of pamphlets with that same viewpoint.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 20, 2009 11:45 AM
Chillidog
If the pamphlet is for scouting rather than the glee club, what then? School based versus community based? We successfully convinced our school board that they were in error when they prevented the scouts (and 4H and other less secular notices) to post join-up literature and notices. I had assumed we were on the right side of some legal ruling but kersham seems pretty clear that we were not - just on the side of sanity.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 20, 2009 11:55 AM
Chilidog, I notice that your comment @25 is not grounded in either the text of the First Amendment, or the courts' interpretations of it, or even any general philosophical idea of what freedom of speech is and why it's important.
Your comment therefore seems to amount to the assertion that you, personally, don't care very much about public school students' freedom of speech. This begs the question: Why should anyone agree with you or care what you think? What justifies your views? You don't say.
Posted by: Tom | November 20, 2009 11:56 AM
I love how people are attacking the ACLU before they did anything. I am pro-choice and a supporter of the ACLU and I don't see that the school has any grounds at all. The student was not trying to disrupt anything, she was not engaging in any school authorized speech (commencement, etc.), she was legitimately and within the rules expressing a position.
Now would any of you like to apologize to this ACLU supporter for your illegitimate and ill-timed attacks?
Posted by: Matt Silb | November 20, 2009 12:21 PM
Matt Sib, are you reading a different website? I don't see any criticism of the ACLU on this thread.
Posted by: Matty | November 20, 2009 12:28 PM
Matt Silb - In short, NO! No I'm not going to apologise for anything, and neither is anyone else on this thread.
The reason? Because only MikeMA (#3) mentioned the ACLU, and then it was positively. - DJ
------------
BTW - Reading comprehension: F
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 12:30 PM
Obviously, one shouldn't take these people at face value.
As I understand it, she wanted to (a) remain silent unless called upon in class, and (b) hand out literature to classmates to explain her silence. I saw nothing about "handing out literature in the hallways". Rather, it seems like she wanted to hand out literature in class.
Up front, that could be disruptive, especially if she tried to hand it out to people who came in just as class was starting (or who came in late). Five minutes, after all, it 10% of a 50-minute class. The nature of the literature compounds the potential for disruption. If it's going to be offensive to some people (which strikes me as a given in a setting like this), it could easily spark a heated discussion. Not a bad thing, per se, in a classroom setting. But certainly disruptive, especially if the teacher had other things that needed to be done. Not to mention, if you give one student the right to disrupt class, you give all students the right to disrupt class.
Granted, they claim that the stuff she wanted to do was "not disruptive". In fact, they say so three times in the complaint. That in itself suggests to me that the school did see it as disruptive.
Funny thing about the lawyer - while he seems to be a real (divorce) lawyer and not a dentist/real estate agent/lawyer, he obviously skipped the day they covered copyright law. His blog consists mainly of news articles reproduced apparently in their entirety, with little or no comment.
Posted by: Ian | November 20, 2009 12:31 PM
I really enjoy these cases, and Ed, again, shines when he swings the Constitutional battle axe.
Ian#31 said:
If that is the case, I can see a grounds for prohibiting it, because any speech/advocacy could reasonably be prohibited during class, because it takes up class time. If one were to grant that student the minute or two to hand out her pamphlets, they would have to allow a minute or two to any student, and that could in theory (but not likely in reality) lead to much time being chewed up by advocacy.
If that was the position of the school, they should have politely told the student/parents that C.H. (nor any student) was not permitted to hand out literature in class, but was quite welcome to do it in the hallway before or after class, and could retain the right to not speak during class other than when called on.
Posted by: cm | November 20, 2009 12:48 PM
Tom #27:
Tom, you make a good point and say it well, so may I call your attention to the "begs the question" error here, so you can choose to expunge it from your use?
Posted by: cm | November 20, 2009 12:51 PM
(Actually, Tom, had you used a semicolon instead of a colon, you would have used "begs the question" correctly!)
Posted by: cm | November 20, 2009 12:53 PM
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see anyone attacking the ACLU on this issue. I personally asked some questions and remain unconvinced that this is as cut and dried as presented. That isn't a condemnation of the ACLU, far from it, it is a principled stance based upon the fact that I don't know some key aspects of the case. Did the girl want to hand those pamphlets out during class? If that is the case, then yes, the school is correct. If, on the other hand, they did deny her request based upon the stated argument that they "don't allow anything religious," then they are complete idiots, the ACLU is 100% correct, and this is a slam-dunk if it goes to trial.
None of my questions, concerns, or comments should be construed as an argument against the ACLU or its efforts either overall or in this specific case.
----------
Ed,
Actually Ed, I think if a school had a complete dress code policy (IE uniforms) and a zero literature (IE no forum) policy they would be okay. I am virtually 100% certain that this isn't the case, but in the hypothetical situation where they did not establish an open forum and had full school uniforms, (both extremely rare and highly unlikely) they would be justified.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 20, 2009 1:00 PM
I guess the ultimate question here is to what degree the “passing out of pamphlets” disrupted the schools activities. Certainly passing out pamphlets during class would be disruptive, even between classes could be construed as disruptive for the simple fact that such activity would likely interfere with the orderly flow of students from one class to another. Maybe her English teacher should have made her write a paper on the Ellen James Society.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 20, 2009 1:35 PM
I'm not sure this changes things, but about
In our schools we've had students doing similar protests, and they hand out flyers to other students only when they're asked about the reason for the protest: it replaces the spoken answer. I've seen nothing here that would exclude this explanation for the young woman in question.
Posted by: dean | November 20, 2009 2:24 PM
Then why would you get permission from the school? If you don't talk to anyone except when called on in class, then you aren't doing anything special. I bet there are a number of kids like that in every school. If you want to explain to people what you are doing then you only need one pamphlet. Let people read it, return it and move on.
No, it's all about proselytizing. I suspect that there is a lot more to this story than we know about. Clearly this protest was organized by a religious group! and I’m willing to bet that the pamphlets were either very religious or very graphic (which they have examples of on their site).
Posted by: Chilidog | November 20, 2009 3:30 PM
"Then why would you get permission from the school?"
Interesting question: I think (have not checked) locally it is part of a blanket policy.
Posted by: dean | November 20, 2009 4:11 PM
Let's compare this to the Day of Silence. I have some knowledge on this because my daughter participated. Basically she refused to talk for the day while in school. If called on, she wrote her answers. The idea is that this is a reasonable accommodation for her political beliefs. She wore a chain around her neck that had a "Day of Silence" card in bright orange attached. If she was asked why she wasn't talking, she handed out one of those bright orange cards. On one side of the card was an explanation of why she wasn't talking along with a a website to go to for more information. On the other side was a "Things you can do to help end harassment of LGBT students" and an invitation to attend a meeting after school that day.
It appears to me that C.H. didn't want to do anything more than that.
Posted by: Tom | November 20, 2009 4:12 PM
Maybe it’s just the cynic in me, but I suspect that there is more to it than that. The group that organized the protest in this case is involved in other, similar lawsuits. They are the types that go around with large color posters of aborted fetal matter. The fact that her father is one of the plaintiffs is another red flag to me. This wasn’t intended to be a “silent” protest; it was intended to proselytize a particular religious viewpoint. This was intended to disrupt school activities.
Look at it this way, if they win, they will use this to disrupt school activities to the fullest extent possible. That is the whole intention here.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 20, 2009 4:35 PM
As evidence that things are not what they seem here, I point out the fact that although they identified the girl as CH in the affidavit, we know her last name because her father is a co-plaintiff. The lawyer is a firm specializing in these lawsuits for the ministry that organized these protests.
Posted by: CHilidog | November 20, 2009 4:39 PM
CHilidog,
Meaning what?
You posts are virtually all with any support--just your gut feelings.
And all protests are meant to proselytize a viewpoint. Her pro-life viewpoint happens to be one, I'm guessing, you don't like very much.
Posted by: heddle | November 20, 2009 5:10 PM
Would the content of the fliers have any bearing on whether or not handing them out could be considered disruptive? That is, would a purely text flier describing an anti-abortion stance and the rationales for same be non-disruptive? Would a glossy, full-color page of a dismembered 8 month late term aborted fetus with a blood red "JESUS WANTS TO STOP THE MURDERS!" headline be considered disruptive?
The text version could be brimming with bible verses and bursting with a "Christian" message and cause nothing but yawns as it is crumpled and discarded. The glossy would, I think, cause quite a stir. Both are anti-abortion, both probably from a religious stand point. But one is designed to inform, and the other to disrupt.
So does content matter?
I don't know what the young lady is planning on distributing. But I am curious if the administration would have a leg to stand on banning the glossy.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | November 20, 2009 5:42 PM
Most of the organizations, etc., that do these types of protests make certain to get permission from the school because they want to avoid conflicts and confusion like this one. I know when our school has done the day of silence for the Gay-Straight Alliance, the teacher rep made certain that the students identified themselves prior to the actual day of silence, they had t-shirts made up, set guidelines and ground rules to avoid disrupting the classroom, etc.
I would assume that this was an attempt to do something similar. I also lean towards the idea that the school copped an attitude, misunderstood their power or the limitations of the kids, etc., but I still don't know what they mean by "pamphlet." If you're talking about the small card that says "I am not speaking to commemorate..." that's not a pamphlet but a brief explanation, I wouldn't see that as a disruption of the classroom environment. On the other hand if an actual pamphlet trying to explain the overall right to life, pro-life, etc., position and argument were passed out during classroom instruction, it would be inappropriate. Realistically this is, as far as I can see, the only legitimate argument that the administration has in this case.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 20, 2009 5:59 PM
On an unrelated note from the above comments; I'm not sure CH's family have hired the brightest lawyers available, when their complaint document seeks to anonymise, (if that's a word), the student in question by just using initials, and then openly giving her fathers surname, which just happens to start with the second anonymised initial.
Unless there are a swag of C Hudaks running around that school, all with different fathers, rocket science will not be required to establish who the anonymous complainant actually is, so why go to the bother of trying to establish anonymity?
Posted by: shane | November 20, 2009 6:56 PM
Shane, the Lawyers were hired by the religious ministry that organized the protest.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 20, 2009 8:07 PM
Chilidog -
This wasn’t intended to be a “silent” protest; it was intended to proselytize a particular religious viewpoint.
In point of fact, it is intended to proselytize a particular political and social viewpoint - exactly like the LGBT day of silence. That the viewpoint is quite likely motivated by religion and possibly even mentions those motivations is irrelevant. It is an act of political and social protest.
This was intended to disrupt school activities.
And how precisely do you know that? How do you know they are doing something that is entirely different than, rather than mimicking the tactic used by supporters of LGBT rights, in their day of silence?
Look at it this way, if they win, they will use this to disrupt school activities to the fullest extent possible. That is the whole intention here.
First of all, unless there is a complete legal travesty that would certainly be appealed, they have already won. All that is left is the formality of court proceedings. Secondly, again, how the fuck do you know any of this.
I get that you don't like what this child was trying to represent. I don't either. What I do appreciate, is that this girl has the same right to advocate an anti-choice viewpoint, that LGBT's and advocates for their rights to be treated like human beings have to advocate theirs. And personally, I am more than happy to allow one delusional little girl to show everyone what a fucking moron she is, if that means that a hell of a lot more kids have the right to stand up for GLBTs.
There are certainly rules for the classroom that needn't be adjusted for these types of protest. In many schools the GLBT day of silence participants still engage in classroom discussions, though some schools and/or some teachers are willing to accommodate even there. That is not the same as outright refusing to let a student engage in this at all. Students have a right to free speech with only a few more restrictions than those placed on the general population outside of school. The restriction of political speech has an even greater bar. As it good and damn well should have.
When we wish to allow speech we approve of, we need to accept that there will be speech we do not. Personally, I tend to think that letting people who have unpleasant beliefs they wish to espouse, we should allow them all the rope they want, with which to hang themselves. Responding is much better than restricting.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 20, 2009 8:28 PM
What I find hilarious:
1. Documents refer to plaintiff as 'CH' for purposes of anonymity.
2. Documents refer to plaintiff's father as Mr. Hudak.
Well, if that's his real name, (1) has become rather pointless.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 20, 2009 9:15 PM
The PDF of the complaint (linked to in Ed's leader) makes clear (several times) that the C.H. was going to talk about her religious beliefs and hints that the cards actually contained some religious material. Not that it makes any difference since, clearly, these beliefs were the student's not the school's. However, since it also contained the address of the organisation sponsoring the protest (a church one presumes) then the school could claim that the organisation doesn't have the right to advertise (or proselytise) itself within the school. The student's could speak generically about their faith, but mention no specific organisation related to that faith.
Proselytization, solicitation or advertising are out, information (that neither seeks or assumes belief or compliance) is in. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 9:28 PM
1. Yes, it is a stupid tradition, but it is the legal tradition for the parents of student litagants to be listed as their "best friend" or "next friend" on Complaints. The institution goes way back, look at Tinker.
2. This is just the Complaint, we haven't seen the District's Answer. The school may have some valid arguments, probably along the lines of Hazlewood (i.e., that the school didn't mind the protest but argued that the literature was likely to be disruptive).
3. chilidog really doesn't like organized religion, and there is no good reason to argue with him/her about it, religion is just wrong. No real point in continuing the discussion.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 20, 2009 10:23 PM
"Prayer for Relief"? IANAL, does anybody know if this is standard legal jargon?
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | November 21, 2009 1:58 AM
Shorter chilidog,
Really, chilidog, "disrupt school activities to the fullest extent possible"? Just how often do Christian groups really do that?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 21, 2009 9:07 AM