EvilMonkey Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb394047.htm So does this mean that they are endorsing illegal immigration? Just wondering. Southern California School Sued for Silencing Student on Illegal Immigration The law firm of Lively, Ackerman & Cowles has sued California's Jurupa Unified School District for silencing a student who attempted to speak out on the issue of illegal immigration in a peaceful way. Riverside, CA (PRWEB) June 5, 2006 -- The public interest firm of Lively, Ackerman & Cowles (www.LivelyAckerman.com) filed suit on behalf of Jurupa Valley High School student Joshua Denhalter late last week. The First Amendment suit alleges that the public high school has intentionally interfered with his right to speak out on the issue of illegal immigration. Case Number RIC450811 was filed in Riverside County Superior Court. Mr. Denhalter alleges that on March 27, 2006, dozens of high school students, mostly of Mexican-American descent, illegally walked out of school in protest of legislation that was being proposed by the U.S. Congress (HR4437) concerning illegal immigration. He was not one of these students and chose to act lawfully. Instead of illegally walking out of school and being truant, Denhalter chose to organize a legitimate and lawful counter-protest/assembly during the lunch hour on or about March 30, 2006. The peaceable assembly was to take place across from the school on a public sidewalk (i.e., a traditional public forum). The peaceable assembly would not have disrupted school activities because Jurupa Valley High School has an “open lunch” period. This means that students are free to come and go during this time. As such, any student could have “walked out” during the lunch to attend the assembly and there would be no disruption or violation of truancy laws. On the morning of March 30, 2006, Denhalter began handing out flyers for his event. That same morning, around 7:30 AM, he was approached by school officials and told that he could not hand out flyers advertising his First Amendment protected activities. He refused to give up his right to pass out handbills/flyers. As a result of his refusal to give up his constitutional rights, Denhalter was suspended for “handing out flyers (before school) advocating the disruption of school activities”. However, the school did not punish the dozens of students who walked out in violation of the law several days before. Furthermore, between March 27 and March 30, 2006, the school allowed MECHA to sponsor an on-campus rally in opposition to HR4437. Denhalter asked for permission to sponsor a similar counter-rally on campus but was flatly denied by the school district's board. Finally, just the week before filing of this complaint, on May 25, 2006, the school prohibited Denhalter from wearing a “Save Our State” t-shirt by telling him that he needed to turn the shirt inside out and not ever wear it again. The content of the political speech set forth on the shirt was the sole basis for this censorship and prior restraint of Denhalter’s rights. He seeks a restraining order allowing him to express himself freely as to political matters until the end of the school year (i.e., June 21, 2006). According to lead attorney Richard D. Ackerman, “This is one of the worst governmental censorship cases I have seen in over a decade of practice. It is simply unbelievable that a school district would take sides with those who promote illegal activity over a student wishing to express his protected views in a traditionally and legally acceptable manner. These officials must be severely punished for their actions.” The law firm is handling this matter on a pro bono basis. The firm says that temporary restraining orders will be sought against the school within the next ten days. Donations are being taken for Denhalter's legal costs through the donation link at www.profamilylawcenter.com. Those interested in helping this young man can designate the money to be used for the "Josh Denhalter First Amendment Fund." Tax deductible donations will only be used to assist in his and related First Amendment cases. Mr. Denhalter is going to boot camp five days after graduating from Jurupa Valley High School and cannot afford the costs of this litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Dunno what CA state law is for education, but there are some SC cases. Tinker v Des Moines basically states that as long as it is not disruptive to the teaching, it is protected. From Wikipedia: However, though Tinker remains one of the most frequently-cited Court opinions in society today, some argue the ruling's applicability has been limited by subsequent decisions. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a 1986 case, the Supreme Court held that a high school student's sexual innuendo–laden speech during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. While the Fraser court distinguished Tinker, the Fraser court carved out an exception for "indecent" speech. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, where the court ruled that schools have the right to regulate, for legitimate educational reasons, the content of non-forum, school-sponsored newspapers, also limits Tinker's application. The Court in Hazelwood clarified that both Fraser and Hazelwood were decided under the doctrine of Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association. Such a distinction keeps undisturbed the Material Disruption doctrine of Tinker, while deciding certain student free speech cases under the Nonpublic Forum doctrine of Perry. Being a big fan of Tinker vs Des Moines, I'd say that the kid has a case (but that's me not knowing the details of the open lunch policy at the specific school -- perhaps advertising the "walk-out" is the difference that crossed it into disruptive behavior whereas the other walk-out kids didn't advertise it within the school...But that's the only thing I can think of as a distinction) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 No ACLU involvement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 07:10 AM) No ACLU involvement? You think those leftist hypocrites would back a student that spoke out against one of their pet causes? PLEASE! The American Criminal Liberties Union has bigger fish to fry like ensuring Child f***ers are free from Law Enforcement interference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 07:10 AM) No ACLU involvement? Mainly, and this is according to the ACLU of So. California page -- the kid didn't ask them to take on the case. http://www.aclu-sc.org/Legal/Intake/ A lot of times, you have to ask the ACLU to jump on board before they will. (i.e. the prayer kid that raised a furor over here) The kid asked the ACLU to take the case. I haven't seen any info that the kid in this case asked the ACLU. And Nuke, the ACLU defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie before. So please, have a nice wonderful cup of STFU and go out and actually learn about the topic before you start sputtering ignorantly like a quivering fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) Mainly, and this is according to the ACLU of So. California page -- the kid didn't ask them to take on the case. So the ACLU only looks out for the civil liberties of those that b**** the loudest? I thought it was the principle! Hmmm, maybe that shouldn't have been in green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 QUOTE(juddling @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) So the ACLU only looks out for the civil liberties of those that b**** the loudest? I thought it was the principle! Hmmm, maybe that shouldn't have been in green. Not b**** the loudest, just request that the ACLU take the case. But it seems to me that asking the ACLU to take the case would not be #1 on this specific kid's list of actions because methinks that he is not too big a fan of that organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) the ACLU defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie before. So please, have a nice wonderful cup of STFU and go out and actually learn about the topic lol, they don't give a f*** about free speech. the only reason they took that case was to 'prove' they don't have any sort of political agenda. i suggest you look at what the vast majority of their cases are and stop being an ignorant, childish, ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) lol, they don't give a f*** about free speech. the only reason they took that case was to 'prove' they don't have any sort of political agenda. i suggest you look at what the vast majority of their cases are and stop being an ignorant, childish, ass. Yeah, a claim with no factual basis backing it up at all that sure convinced me that you're right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) Yeah, a claim with no factual basis backing it up at all that sure convinced me that you're right! the factual basis would be the past cases the ACLU has chosen to take and spend the most time and resources on. oh, and no, i'm not looking up a bunch of past cases for you. i really don't care what you are or aren't convinced of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 lol, they don't give a f*** about free speech. the only reason they took that case was to 'prove' they don't have any sort of political agenda. You sure are easy to please. ACLU defends 'liberal' group/person/cause: SEE I TOLD YOU THEYS WAS LIBRAL ACLU defends 'conservative' group/person/cause: THEY JUST FAKIN IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 7, 2006 -> 06:32 PM) You sure are easy to please. ACLU defends 'liberal' group/person/cause: SEE I TOLD YOU THEYS WAS LIBRAL ACLU defends 'conservative' group/person/cause: THEY JUST FAKIN IT Hey! You're beginning to catch on. Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts