Another day in Teddykennedyland


PDA






LAR-15
February 21, 2005, 11:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Last Updated: Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:23:46 AM EST
http://www.lowellsun.com/Stories/0,1413,105%257E4746%257E2721094,00.html

Free speech or bad example?

'Fight crime' plate on car at school has some parents fuming

By CHRISTINE PHELAN, Sun Staff

LOWELL -- An employee's car parked at Abraham Lincoln Elementary School lot has sparked fury among some parents ushering their children inside the school each morning.

The car -- a red, late-model Ford Mustang with a novelty plate on its front end reading "Fight crime, shoot first" -- irritated one parent so much that she complained to her son's pre-kindergarten teacher. The parent, who asked to remain anonymous, also took the issue up with school Principal Sandra Dunning earlier this week, as well as Superintendent of Schools Karla Brooks Baehr.

"Being a member of the staff, well, you have to be an example to the kids," the mother insisted. "You don't just do whatever."

"I can listen to parents and listen to their concerns," Dunning said. "But we do live in America. That's part of our democracy, free speech."

The parent, however, says the school's responsibility to provide positive role models to children supersedes the right to free speech, and that the offending license plate is a breech of the public trust placed in school employees.

"I don't think it's just a question of freedom of speech," the mother said, noting that while her son is still learning to read, the school's older students have full reading ability. "You don't leave it for the kids to see every day."

The First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition and was added in 1791, stipulates that Congress shall not "(abridge) the freedom of speech."

According to Taylor Flynn, a Northeastern University professor and expert in Constitutional law, the school employee with the plate might actually find favor if the case found its way into court, particularly because, in her view, the evidence that students' education is being disrupted by the plate is on the lean side.

"However, I think there is a fairly strong possibility that a court would find that the staff person's First Amendment rights are being violated if the employee feels (directly or indirectly) coerced into covering the plate or is doing so over her objection."

Principal Dunning, who admitted she was "a little surprised" by the plate, initially echoed Flynn's concerns, saying that such a message might be considered inappropriate if it entered the building. But outside? Dunning said that's a different matter entirely.

"If anything disrupts the educational process, we do have the right to ask staff and teachers to maintain a code of conduct," she said. "What is parked in a lot or on a street is a different matter, however. Whatever happens in the building we have control over."

"I think it's inappropriate," she said. "I think we all take responsibility to model appropriate language and behavior. Yes, they see all sorts of things on TV, in ads, that lots of people would find inappropriate as a model for a 5- or 6-year-old. But having (the license plate) there in the lot suggests we condone it."

The solution? Dunning and Baehr plan to mandate that the staff member somehow cover the plate upon arrival each morning, possibly with magnets and a cloth. The plate will be covered by the first day of school after February break, Feb. 28, Behr said.

"I expect cooperation on the part of the staff members to cover it up or obscure it in some way," Baehr said.

And when the staff member is not on school property -- and by that, Baehr means either in the building or in the parking lot -- "she's free to do as she pleases."

The parent who initially complained said she was happy with that solution, though put off that "going public" with the story was the route to compromise.

"I'm aggravated because they only did something when I said I was going to talk to The Sun," the mother said. "I feel that I had to go outside the school to solve a little problem, because this could have been solved within the school."

Christine Phelan's e-mail address is cphelan@lowellsun.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Another day in Teddykennedyland" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 22, 2005, 12:29 AM
"I can listen to parents and listen to their concerns," Dunning said. "But we do live in America. That's part of our democracy, free speech."

Oops, looks like someone's forgetting that they live in a Blue State.

The solution? Dunning and Baehr plan to mandate that the staff member somehow cover the plate upon arrival each morning, possibly with magnets and a cloth. The plate will be covered by the first day of school after February break, Feb. 28, Behr said.

Well then, it appears that a tidy "Blue State" solution to unpopular speech has been achieved.

YammyMonkey
February 22, 2005, 01:02 AM
Too bad we have to have front plates here, I'd seriously consider throwing that on our vehicles. :evil:

cracked butt
February 22, 2005, 03:40 AM
It might be different because the school is a public employer, but in every private company I worked for, company policies usually dictated that employees did not display tasteless or controversial stickers or decorations on vehicles parked on public property.

For that matter, I no longer even put political bumperstickers on my vehicles- with the complete lack of maturity in regards to the last election or two I'd be worried about retaliation for advocating one candidate or another on my vehicle.

Smoke
February 22, 2005, 08:15 AM
he parent, however, says the school's responsibility to provide positive role models to children supersedes the right to free speech

And what is this parent teaching her kids?

Insanity... :banghead:

Smoke :(

RavenVT100
February 22, 2005, 08:19 AM
The parent, however, says the school's responsibility to provide positive role models to children supersedes the right to free speech, and that the offending license plate is a breech of the public trust placed in school employees

Woman, I can most assuredly remind you that it does not.

enfield
February 22, 2005, 08:35 AM
Everybody seems to skip over the 1st three words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall not". The school ain't Congress and they can do as they please.

Old Fuff
February 22, 2005, 08:49 AM
It should be remembered that the locale of this incident is under left-wing/liberal control, and as such civil liberties are selective, and subject to political correctness. The public school systems have established outstanding performance records for something called “zero tolerance,” and see no reason the same standards shouldn’t apply to free speech. Undoubtedly this matter will be brought to a “suitable” conclusion from the Left’s point of view, “for the children.” :banghead:

Besides, the offender’s car also seems a bit “image incorrect.” It sends a bad message too. Obviously some discipline is called for … :rolleyes:

whm1974
February 22, 2005, 08:57 AM
It might be different because the school is a public employer, but in every private company I worked for, company policies usually dictated that employees did not display tasteless or controversial stickers or decorations on vehicles parked on public property.

Did you mean company property? Outside of work no company has the right to tell you what you can or cannot decorate your car with. On thier parking lot however...

-Bill

Yooper
February 22, 2005, 09:35 AM
I wonder if someone forced the complaining parent to read the license plate. Maybe she would like some cheese with that whine!

tetchaje1
February 22, 2005, 09:47 AM
If the school is a public school then it has no say over what the faculty member has on their car. A private school is a different matter.

Yes, the law states that "Congress shall not" but if the school is even partially funded with Federal tax dollars, the school's actions in abridging the staff member's free speech is an extension of the government abridging his/her free speech rights. The parking lot is public property and his/her car is private property. As such, the teacher cannot be forced to remove the plate from her car. Time to get a good Con-law lawyer. :evil:

Parking your private car in a private employer's lot is a different matter, and they are within their rights to limit what you can say and do on their property.

Augustwest
February 22, 2005, 10:07 AM
"You don't just do whatever."

Ah. An eloquent freedomthief.

The parent, however, says the school's responsibility to provide positive role models to children supersedes the right to free speech...

:(

Truly, as angry as it makes me, this kind of nonsense also makes me very sad...

dolanp
February 22, 2005, 10:22 AM
And in a state like that, I'll bet you they would fight tooth and nail if the sticker referenced abortion instead of guns to let the employee keep it displayed. Something to the effect of "We cannot abridge this employee's freedom to believe in what they want! This is government censorship! Bush eats babies!"

Third_Rail
February 22, 2005, 10:37 AM
...if the sticker referenced abortion instead of guns to let the employee keep it displayed


When I read the article, I brought up the same point to my parents. To my amazement, they agreed that the school was wrong in doing what it did, and that free speech is, in fact, still around.

Rockrivr1
February 22, 2005, 10:47 AM
Unfortunately the bias against guns here in this state is deeply rooted and I doubt there will be any significant changes in our favor anytime soon. I was talking with GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) at a Gun Show last month and they were very frustrated that a growing number of towns were not accepting "All Lawful Purposes" applications any more. This is against the law, but then again who are you going to complain to?

We are deeply behind enemy lines here.

Third_Rail
February 22, 2005, 10:59 AM
I hope to be out of MA when I turn 21.

Otherwise, I won't be owning any more firearms... they can take away LTCs without cause, but not FIDs.... yet.

garyk/nm
February 22, 2005, 11:23 AM
The parent, who asked to remain anonymous,

Well, of course she did. Life is so much easier when you remain anonymous. None of that nasty "having to defend your actions" stuff. Ought to be a legal requirement that if you're going to complain, your name gets published. Probably cut down on a lot of this useless whining.

:cuss:

Justin
February 22, 2005, 01:14 PM
Once again, a charter member of the Mrs. Kravitz Goose-Step Brigade makes a tactical strike, you know, for the children.

Phil Ca
February 22, 2005, 01:57 PM
The 1st Amendment is only for show and not actual something to believe in, or so some people would have you believe.

I worked in a federal office in downtown SF for several years. In my last position I was in a two person office. I had a large 5' by 4' glass covered map behind me with little symbols showing all of our field offices and the HQ and our school in Georgia. I had some IPA flags and patches on the wall and all in all it was a very colorful display.

I had a couple of bumperstickers attached near the bottom that read, "Don't Steal, the Government Hates Competition", and "I Love My Country But Fear My Government". I had these displayed for several years even when our chief from Dee Cee was visiting. We also had outside contractors that were visiting to show their products and to work out specs for projects.

One day my coworker, the project engineer (electrical) asked me if I had considered how the display of those messages looked to our visitors. I said that most of them just laughed and agreed with the message if they even saw them at all. I also brought up the 1st Amendment bit but like most bureaucratic folks he did not believe it all the way. after a couple of days I made a cover for the one that said,"I Love My Country But Fear My Government" and spelled out the wored "CENSORED" in small letters on it. Iy you lifted the flap the message was visable. This actually caused more interest than before and even more people saw it. I kept it there until I retired a couple of years later.

:cool:

The Rabbi
February 22, 2005, 02:05 PM
I'm confused. So what is the parent's complaint? That the license plate advocates shooting criminals? That is involves shooting, which is obviously a dangerous activity? That criminals should not be shot?
If the employee had a plate that said "Advocate gun control. Get shot first" would that be OK or is any reference to guns except in the context of banning them verboten? If the plate said "control global warming: muzzle Kennedy" would that be OK and protected?
I am confused. :confused:

Fletchette
February 23, 2005, 12:39 AM
Taxachusetts is not a Republic, it is a Monachy.

I lived there for most of my youth, and even at a young age was aghast at how the Kennedys could break just about any law they wanted whilst still finding adoration amongst the peasants.

As for the commoners, there is a different set of laws.

I am so grateful I escaped from that society, and have lived the later part of my life in relative Freedom. Unfortunately, they have managed to establish a beach-head on the left coast.

Classic pincer-movement. Only a matter of time.

Preacherman
February 23, 2005, 01:36 AM
And yesterday was Teddy's birthday, too... as Jay Leno commented, he's 73, which proves that alcohol is a preservative! :D

Obiwan
February 23, 2005, 06:40 AM
There is no freedom from being offended.

And ignorant, petty people will always find a way to be offended

If she gets her way here, imagine what is next

If you enjoyed reading about "Another day in Teddykennedyland" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!