Christian Liberty
Well-known member
That guy? Of course. Well, I'm not a fan of prisons. I wonder if a BIblical case could be made for execution for trying to brainwash kids into thinking that capital crime is morally OK.
Judge Who Jailed Kim Davis Ordered Students Who Opposed Homosexuality Be Re-Educated
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
That guy? Of course. Well, I'm not a fan of prisons. I wonder if a BIblical case could be made for execution for trying to brainwash kids into thinking that capital crime is morally OK.
Jose Fly
New member
If you're going to cite court cases, you need to be aware of the entire history of the cases.
CLICK HERE
"For anti-harassment training, the school district had adopted a one-hour video. Morrison stated that this video only permitted positive statements about homosexuality and banned critical viewpoints. This content-based restriction, he asserted, is constitutionally impermissible.[36] Judge Bunning, presiding over the case, found this argument legally unfounded. The video in question was not student speech; it was school-sponsored speech. This type of speech is governed by Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). This case ruled that although pure student speech is protected under the First Amendment, a school “may refuse to lend its name . . . to student expression” when it is sponsoring speech, as long as the editorial control is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”[37] The only pure student speech that occurred during these training sessions was anonymous evaluations of the video. These evaluations were not censored.[38]
Finding Morrison’s free-speech claims unfounded, Judge Bunning ruled against the plaintiff. Morrison appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Morrison v. Board of Ed. of Boyd County (2007). Morrison withdrew his claims regarding the anti-harassment training in the appeal, but he claimed that the district judge did not evaluate a damages claim regarding the code of conduct. The plaintiff requested financial compensation from the Board of Education for chilling his speech during the 2004–2005 school year.[39]
Judge Moore, writing the opinion for the case, deferred to a three-prong test derived from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to file suit against the school district for damages. The first prong of the test, which is the most relevant to the First Amendment issues in the case, states that the plaintiff must have “suffered an ‘injury-in-fact’—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) ‘actual’ or ‘imminent,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’”[40] The Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit cited three cases from its sister circuits in arguing that a chill of speech can constitute an injury-in-fact.[41] So Judge Moore argued that the plaintiff could have a successful claim if he could prove that “an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in [First Amendment-protected] conduct.”[42] Since Morrison did not address this in his case, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court for further deliberation.
Before the case returned to the district court, however, the Board of Education petitioned the Court of Appeals to revisit its decision. In a new decision, Morrison v. Board of Ed. of Boyd County (2008), Judge Cook cited Laird v. Tatum, a 1973 Supreme Court case. In Laird, respondents filed a class action lawsuit against the Department of the Army, claiming that the Army’s surveillance of legal actions chilled their speech.[43] The Court decided that, since the chilling arose only from the respondents perception of the Army’s policies, the chill was subjective, which does not constitute an injury-in-fact.[44] The Court of Appeals argued that this same situation occurred at Boyd County High School and overturned its original decision. Morrison subjectively interpreted the code of conduct to be chilling of his speech, but no concrete actions were taken against him.[45] Judge Cook stated rather bluntly, “This is a case about nothing… Morrison lacks standing to pursue his claim of chilled speech.”[46] So, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff damages."
Finding Morrison’s free-speech claims unfounded, Judge Bunning ruled against the plaintiff. Morrison appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Morrison v. Board of Ed. of Boyd County (2007). Morrison withdrew his claims regarding the anti-harassment training in the appeal, but he claimed that the district judge did not evaluate a damages claim regarding the code of conduct. The plaintiff requested financial compensation from the Board of Education for chilling his speech during the 2004–2005 school year.[39]
Judge Moore, writing the opinion for the case, deferred to a three-prong test derived from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to file suit against the school district for damages. The first prong of the test, which is the most relevant to the First Amendment issues in the case, states that the plaintiff must have “suffered an ‘injury-in-fact’—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) ‘actual’ or ‘imminent,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’”[40] The Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit cited three cases from its sister circuits in arguing that a chill of speech can constitute an injury-in-fact.[41] So Judge Moore argued that the plaintiff could have a successful claim if he could prove that “an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in [First Amendment-protected] conduct.”[42] Since Morrison did not address this in his case, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court for further deliberation.
Before the case returned to the district court, however, the Board of Education petitioned the Court of Appeals to revisit its decision. In a new decision, Morrison v. Board of Ed. of Boyd County (2008), Judge Cook cited Laird v. Tatum, a 1973 Supreme Court case. In Laird, respondents filed a class action lawsuit against the Department of the Army, claiming that the Army’s surveillance of legal actions chilled their speech.[43] The Court decided that, since the chilling arose only from the respondents perception of the Army’s policies, the chill was subjective, which does not constitute an injury-in-fact.[44] The Court of Appeals argued that this same situation occurred at Boyd County High School and overturned its original decision. Morrison subjectively interpreted the code of conduct to be chilling of his speech, but no concrete actions were taken against him.[45] Judge Cook stated rather bluntly, “This is a case about nothing… Morrison lacks standing to pursue his claim of chilled speech.”[46] So, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff damages."
According to the ACLU:
Status: On April 9, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that because the school board had changed its anti-harassment policy, the plaintiff wasn’t eligible to seek damages for refraining from expressing his views while the old policy, which the ACLU believes was unconstitutional, was in effect.
It ended on a legal technicality, but its clear the students rights were violated.
The policy of the school has been changed, from what that activist judge wanted and tried to enforce.
The school is no longer able to force students. That was the point.
This Judge Banning is a hypocrite, he doesnt follow the law himself.
Jose Fly
New member
Right, exactly what I posted.
Hilarious. You cite case law, but when it goes against what you thought, you basically stomp your feet and shout "I'm still right".
Did you read what I posted? In the appeal, the student dropped his claims about the anti-harassment training. Thus, on that question, Judge Bunning's ruling stands.
Youre a total idiot, the school is no longer doing it, you cant seem to understand what you read. Even the ACLU can admit the students rights were violated in bannings ruling. The school has changed that policy.
Jose Fly
New member
Waiting for Bybee to chastise you for being insulting......:chuckle:
Doing what?
Here we go again. Seems like every time you say this, it always turns out that you're the one with reading issues.
Where did they do that?
And how was it changed? Let's see....
In August 2005, the Board revised its policy, as well as the BCMS and BCHS student codes of conduct. Under the revised codes, anti-homosexual speech would not be prohibited unless it was “sufficiently severe or pervasive that it adversely affects a student's education or creates a climate of hostility or intimidation for that student, both from the perspective of an objective educator and from the perspective of the student at whom the harassment is directed.” J.A. at 655 (2005-06 BCHS Code of Conduct at 40); accord J.A. at 642 (2005-06 BCMS Discipline Code at 16). Additionally, the BCHS Code of Conduct stated, “The civil exchange of opinions or debate does not constitute harassment. Students may not, however, engage in behavior that interferes with the rights of another student or materially and substantially disrupts the educational process.”
Huh....nothing in there about the videos. So I'm still wondering where or how you thought "the school is now paying the price for infringing on the students rights"?
And then you said, "The policy of the school has been changed, from what that activist judge wanted and tried to enforce." Exactly how did the change to the policy go against what Judge Bunning enforced?
And then you said, "The school is no longer able to force students. That was the point. " If that's about the videos, where did you get that idea?
Looks like pretty much everything you've said about this case has turned out to be wrong. It's almost like we've been down this road before. :ha:
Since homosexuality and gay marriage isn't a capital crime, it's not going to happen.
Tinark
Active member
Exactly the kind of people we want coming out of our education system. Where being exposed to ideas they disagree with is just too much for them to handle, where they would rather plug their ears and close their eyes and go "la la la la la" and only want to be spoon fed things they already agree with to reinforce their apparently fragile belief system.
Tinark
Active member
Brainwashing is only being exposed to one idea over and over and refusing to hear (or sheltering them from) alternative points of view, exactly like these students in question who already hear the "Biblical" point of view at home and at Chruch all the time.
They are essentially objecting that being exposed to an alternate point of view that they disagree with violates their "right" to remain brainwashed.