Indiana School Halts YAL Anti-Obama Demonstration

[Knightskye]

http://www.timesuniononline.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=224&ArticleID=38005&TM=43018.35


Austin Brenneman, a WCHS senior and president of the WCHS "Young Americans for Liberty" chapter, e-mailed the Times-Union Tuesday morning informing the newspaper he and approximately 10 other members of the organization had plans during their lunch hour Tuesday afternoon to hold a planned demonstration.

Brenneman invited the Times-Union to report on the event Tuesday and said the group planned to distribute flyers and stickers and talk to their peers regarding their concerns of Obama's policies outside the WCHS cafeteria.



"Very simply, the organization did not have approval from the administration to distribute materials and there was a fear that the school would be disrupted if the materials were passed out," Kline said. "The young man (Brenneman) seemed to understand why the demonstration could not be held. He was polite and promised not to distribute the items."

Disrupted by what, exactly?

[Jeremy]

he's a member here :P

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=176654

[OferNave]

http://digg.com/politics/Student_Thinks_School_Violated_1st_Amendment_Right s

[Ex Post Facto]

While I'm all for free speech and demonstration. I'm conflicted on this one. When I heard of YAL's demonstrations starting day 1 of Obama's Presidency I thought, this does nothing to promote our cause in the long term and might create resentment from those living in the moment. Of course, in a forum like this devoted to free speech, objecting to the timing of this event would be grounds to be flamed to death about being an idiot, tard, kook, or whatever you call me.

While I don't agree nobody should be limited in free expression. Like I will be flamed here for objecting to the timing of the demonstration. Each freedom of expression is met with another form of the opposition freedom to express themselves.

My only problem with this is that government doesn't have a right to freedom of speech or expression. They are servant to the public interest. That being said, if those with the authority thought YAL's demonstration was disrupting their facility they have every right to shut it down.

The reason they chose to wield their authority to shut it down should be the only question.

[Melissa]

I know Austin and he would have done a great job and would not have disrupted anything. He works hard to keep the Liberty message going.

[Sandra]

I think that most young activists have not quite honed discernment yet. But a good start anyway.

[jclay2]

I think these school principals and administrators just over blow things. I mean, all he was doing was informing his students about the constitution and the fake that Obama is. Seriously, if this was a pro obama rally, the administration would have been fine with it.

[Austin]

While I'm all for free speech and demonstration. I'm conflicted on this one. When I heard of YAL's demonstrations starting day 1 of Obama's Presidency I thought, this does nothing to promote our cause in the long term and might create resentment from those living in the moment. Of course, in a forum like this devoted to free speech, objecting to the timing of this event would be grounds to be flamed to death about being an idiot, tard, kook, or whatever you call me.

While I don't agree nobody should be limited in free expression. Like I will be flamed here for objecting to the timing of the demonstration. Each freedom of expression is met with another form of the opposition freedom to express themselves.

My only problem with this is that government doesn't have a right to freedom of speech or expression. They are servant to the public interest. That being said, if those with the authority thought YAL's demonstration was disrupting their facility they have every right to shut it down.

The reason they chose to wield their authority to shut it down should be the only question.

I never had the chance to distribute the materials away, the confiscated them from me before I had passed anything out.

Also, the Supreme Court's opinion in "Tinker et al. v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District et al" had this to say


The District Court concluded that the action of the school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk, Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom--this kind of openness--that is [509] the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.

In the Times-Union article, Kline said that the reason they took away the materials was that there was a fear of disturbance.

[Knightskye]

In the Times-Union article, Kline said that the reason they took away the materials was that there was a fear of disturbance.

They thought you would disturb their oh so important history lesson with pamphlets about liberty. :D

[tremendoustie]

While I'm all for free speech and demonstration. I'm conflicted on this one. When I heard of YAL's demonstrations starting day 1 of Obama's Presidency I thought, this does nothing to promote our cause in the long term and might create resentment from those living in the moment. Of course, in a forum like this devoted to free speech, objecting to the timing of this event would be grounds to be flamed to death about being an idiot, tard, kook, or whatever you call me.

No, I understand what you're saying, that was my initial reaction when I read YAL's plans. But, I think it's ok if it's done in a respectful, informative way -- not to try to antagonize Obama supporters, but just to educate. I don't agree with the "Obamunism" term, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of that.

I do think this can be a great opportunity. In Krippy's case, it certainly has become an excellent one.



While I don't agree nobody should be limited in free expression. Like I will be flamed here for objecting to the timing of the demonstration. Each freedom of expression is met with another form of the opposition freedom to express themselves.


I agree, the exercise of our freedom of expression rights is highly important.




My only problem with this is that government doesn't have a right to freedom of speech or expression. They are servant to the public interest. That being said, if those with the authority thought YAL's demonstration was disrupting their facility they have every right to shut it down.

The reason they chose to wield their authority to shut it down should be the only question.

I don't agree that they have that authority. Yes, they could prohibit the distribution of materials during class, but not in the cafeteria or in between periods. I think students have the full rights of free speech in school. It is not a situation where they are choosing voluntarily to be on private property, and could leave at any time. The government forces them to be there, and the government is not the same as a private entity, so they do not have a right to decide on a case by case basis what is said there. It seems that the SCOTUS supports this view, I'm suprised they seem to have gotten something right ....