Don't trust NPR!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
I don't see how your post relates to his dilemma.

Atari~It sucks that you were used like that. I don't think it's fair that journalism is hoisted as the search for 'the facts' when, just as easily, someone can construe footage, quotes, and stats to justify their bias and mislead readers/viewers.

Kinda ironic that you can parade a Playboy, but somehow a leaflet and a candy cane is prohibited.

---

Ummm...it's a crime to distribute obscenity to minors. Case fucking closed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Ummm...it's a crime to distribute obscenity to minors. Case fucking closed.

---

I was just responding to what he said here:

Quote:

---

Something interesting that I did learn from this is that Massachusettes law states that even leud things passed out in school are considered free speech!!! Legally, I could show a Playboy to all the Freshman without any retrebution!!!!!!!

---

but if it's not true, then it's not true.

Where's my pocket Constitution?

Ah, here it is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by the Framers of the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

---

Hope that clears things up.

NB: Obscenity, such as handing out a Playboy to kids at a school, is low-value speech and may be regulated by the states depending on the states' interest in regulating that speech versus the value of that speech. Massachusetts could pass a law outlawing such an act; perhaps it already has. But it cannot allow students to hand out religious leaflets to students, even if they are attached to candycanes.

They may seem like comparable acts, and in fact they both fall under the First Amendment, but they raise different constitutional issues. Handing out candycanes infringes on religious freedom, while the Playboy issue implicates freedom of speech.

And that has limits.

Just as there are limits on the 1st ammendment, there are limits on that one.

This is why the Supreme Court interperts the laws of the land.

"Don't trust NPR"... hm, my NPR affiliate runs The Tavis Smiley Show weekdays from 2 to 3 pm, so any faith I would have placed upon "NPR" in its entirety would have been lost the moment I heard him.

The segment was probably going to mention both cases in succession whether your group knew it or not. You do seem awful worrisome for a person who believes in the line of "blessed are the meek" and such ;)

If it wasn't for NPR I'd have very little reason to listen to the radio.

Quote:

---

What is the problem with the masterbation discussion papers? That story can be attached to yours in the context of someone getting in trouble for passing out something they supposedly should be able to pass out at school. You should be supporting him along with the satanist abortion-loving safe-sexing gays unless I'm missing something. =\

---

I don't know that much about the issue, but if the papers ore as obscene as some are making them out to be, then I have a problem since it is handing out obscene things to minors. If they are making a mountain out of a molehill and he really just used the word or something, then I have no problem, but we still don't want to be associated with the case.

Quote:

---

Also, put it in the same thread, or do you need 2x the pity?

---

The point of this thread was to point out that NPR is just as biased as anyone else, even though I've heard many say otherwise.

Quote:

---

Ummm...it's a crime to distribute obscenity to minors. Case fucking closed.

---

Actually, I appear to be in the one state that it isn't a crime in school.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
but if it's not true, then it's not true.

---

It's not true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Hope that clears things up.

---

Sleeve, you've been in law school long enough to know that simply quoting the First Amendment doesn't clear anything up. If the First Amendment permits schools to host Bible clubs in the first place and allows the words "under God" in the pledge, it's silly to think that same amendment prohibits students from distributing religious paraphernalia. In fact, since students are not state actors, the establishment clause has zero relevance to the religious leaflet debate.

Religious discourse is protected speech. The relevant question is whether or not the state has an interest in regulating that speech.

And while Playboy distribution could be separately outlawed on obscenity grounds, what about Koran passages? What about Satan worship material? Those who support the Bible club also have to support the expressive freedom of these groups, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Sleeve, you've been in law school long enough to know that simply quoting the First Amendment doesn't clear anything up.

---

Heh, that little irony was not lost on me when I posted that quote.

Quote:

---

If the First Amendment permits schools to host Bible clubs in the first place and allows the words "under God" in the pledge, it's silly to think that same amendment prohibits students from distributing religious paraphernalia. In fact, since students are not state actors, the establishment clause has zero relevance to the religious leaflet debate.

---

I wouldn't say it has "zero" reference to this question. Personally I think handing out religious leaflets bears more in common with students reciting prayers at football games, which does implicate the establishment clause if I'm not mistaken. I'm not familiar with this "candycane" case nor have I read those Texas football/prayer cases in detail, but IIRC the argument was whether the students were state actors for Establishment purposes.

I'd like to know more details about the other kid passing out the newsletter i.e. how much for a subscription?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
I wouldn't say it has "zero" reference to this question. Personally I think handing out religious leaflets bears more in common with students reciting prayers at football games, which does implicate the establishment clause if I'm not mistaken. I'm not familiar with this "candycane" case nor have I read those Texas football/prayer cases in detail, but IIRC the argument was whether the students were state actors for Establishment purposes.

---

I thought the issue in the football cases was the involvement of school employees or funds. You might be right, but if a court can hold that a student is a state actor, then so is everyone else. You may as well throw that distinction out the window.