http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=50844
In his order, McAuliffe noted that the yearbook student editors were vested with ?editorial discretion and they apparently made the controlling decision not to publish the photograph Blake originally submitted. Absent state action, the students? decision not to publish Blake?s chosen photograph . . . cannot be said to have violated Blake?s First Amendment rights.?
After establishing that the students are private citizens ? and not state actors like the school administrators ? McAuliffe wrote, ?In simple terms, the state has not, it seems, suppressed Blake?s speech; his fellow students have done so, for reasons they deemed appropriate in developing, editing, organizing, and publishing the yearbook. The First Amendment to the Constitution simply does not preclude such conduct by private citizens.?
McAuliffe said the yearbook policy to deny all props is not unconstitutional, noting that the new guideline ?does not single out any particular viewpoint(s) for preferential treatment, nor does it single out any for unfavorable treatment.?
In earlier Articles in the Unionleader it was reported that the students had approved the photo. Then they met with Mr Elefante to discuss the administrations position. Apparently after the 45 minute "discussion" they decided the photo was "inapropriate".
This is the official Policy adopted after the lawsuit. Emphasis added is mine.
Senior Portraits:
All senior portraits shall be of the student only with a traditional indoor or outdoor background. No props, instruments, pets, athletic equipment, hobby items, or vehicles shall be allowed in the photographs. Clothing shall be modest and free of slogans and/or political expressions and such clothing shall be in conformance with the School District's dress code. Photographs of seniors engaged in non-School District sponsored sporting events (only Olympic or NHIAA sanctioned events qualify) may be submitted for inclusion on the community sports page.
Advertisements:
The Londonderry High School yearbook and other school yearbooks are not a public forum. Accordingly, any advertisement must be free of political expression and reflect the common values of the Londonderry School District. Advertisements shall not promote the use of tobacco, alcohol, drugs or use of other items prohibited from use on school grounds.
Senior Messages:
All senior messages shall be free of personal attacks, abusive language, racial epithets, vulgar comments, sexual innuendo, and all other speech that is inconsistent with the shared community values of the Londonderry School District
This has little to do with Constitutional Rights. It is just Petty!
I don't know if it's Constitutional or not, I just don't want my tax money used to help quash this likable kid (or to help him for that matter). I don't want these schools having my money...but as long as they're taking it they'll have to put up with me occasionally showing up at their meetings and checking in on my money.
(An editorial from The 1590 Broadcaster)
Right to bear arms has no legal legs here
Twenty, maybe even 10 years ago, a high school yearbook photograph of a student with his hunting or trap-shooting guns wouldn't have raised many eyebrows. One might say those were days of relative innocence. But those days are no more., Not since Columbine. Not since 9/11.
Consequently, a Londonderry High School skeet-shooter lost his federal court suit, and won't have his senior portrait published in the yearbook with a gun in his arms.
Blake Douglass should have gone for the deal he was offered: an "armed" photo in the yearbook's community sports section. It would have been accepted -- and in better taste.
Instead, he discounted the feelings of others at the school and fought through the court system to have his senior portrait include a gun. He should have considered the high school violence over the past decade, including 1999's Columbine High School shooting in Colorado.
That said, it's now more appropriate for all of the students to have their portraits taken in a common setting if sports or social interests are going to be prohibited as yearbook portraits. Had that been the case originally, perhaps this would not have emerged as a "freedom-of-speech" issue. School administrators must recognize they've instituted a new school policy banning photos with props -- along with political ads and items promoting alcohol, drugs or tobacco.
Ironically, the U.S. District Court decision found that the First Amendment protected the student editors of the yearbook, who made the decision to exclude Douglass' shotgun picture. That made it a private, not a state, decision.
The First Amendment, much abused in recent years, simply doesn't preclude a group of students making editorial decisions about the content of their yearbook.
We need to go forward with Rearden's idea and pass out color prints of this kid on yearbook day, perhaps with 'Top Secret Anti-School info on the back of the images.
Good idea! When is yearbook day?
Don't know. We need a spy in Londonderry.
The kid did not loose the case, since the case has not been heard yet. The judge dennied the injunction to stop the printing of the yearbook. The court date is scheduled for March 8th.
The story about the student yearbook staff dennying the photo is also relatively new. The original story was that the editorial staff approved the photo. It was only after they met with the Principal that they decided that the photo should be excluded.
How about a yearbook burning? ;D
Quick someone hide Russelll matches.
Hey Reardon are you the Mr. Reardon I met after our protest at the Rockingham Courthouse? If so, welcome...if not , welcome!
I think he is a fiction Reardon 8)
Fiction Reardon? Hank?
Sorry . . .
Mr Reardon, Welcome.
Anyway what was the topic . . .
Oh
I'll take a stand in Londonderry.
March 8th?
Tell me where and what time.
Got a minute, man?
The trial is not in Londonderry. I'm not sure where it is. The last article I read stated NH District court.
The court case concluded yesterday. The judge said it did not look good for the student
McAuliffe said he doesn?t believe any of the witnesses testified untruthfully, they just have different perceptions of the events. ?People perceive things differently and people remember things differently,?
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=51772
Quote from: GDouglas on February 15, 2005, 05:14 AM NHFT
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=50844
In his order, McAuliffe noted that the yearbook student editors were vested with ?editorial discretion and they apparently made the controlling decision not to publish the photograph Blake originally submitted. Absent state action, the students? decision not to publish Blake?s chosen photograph . . . cannot be said to have violated Blake?s First Amendment rights.?
After establishing that the students are private citizens ? and not state actors like the school administrators ? McAuliffe wrote, ?In simple terms, the state has not, it seems, suppressed Blake?s speech; his fellow students have done so, for reasons they deemed appropriate in developing, editing, organizing, and publishing the yearbook. The First Amendment to the Constitution simply does not preclude such conduct by private citizens.?
I'm joining the thread late, being a new transplant from the FSP forums.
I also realize this was the ruling against an injunction, and not the March 8 hearing.
With that said... HUH? Does ANYone seriously believe the student editors made the choice of their own volition, with no outside influence? And the idea that they were acting as private citizens is ludicrous. Unpaid reserve police officers are "employed by", thus "employees of" their respective departments, which are liable for their employees' actions. Volunteer parent school bus or lunch room monitors are employed by, and thus employees of, their respective school districts, which are liable for their employees' actions. Student volunteers performing editorial duties for an official school publicatioin are employees of their school, which is responsible for their actions.
Unpaid status does
not make one independent of the employer!
Kevin
According to the local paper. The entire student editorial staff met with the school administration BEFORE they gave their depositions.
I don't realy care wether the kid wants to have a gun in the photo or a pet monkey.
The Londonderry School Board and administration have done everything possible to limit public input. They have been quoted as stating a position that then changes two weeks later. The biggest kick is that they are doing all of this with taxpayer money. None of them will say how much this thing is costing the town. I have multiple unanswered email to the superintendant.
Case over. School Board wins.
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/4296616/detail.html