Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > California Schools

California Schools Topics And Information Relating To California Schools

Immigration Pushed To The Forefront Again.... Thanks! To Everyone Who Has Propelled This Issue To Its' Rightful Position. Years Of Hard Work Are Paying Off.....Keep Up The Good Work!......
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-08-2011, 05:21 AM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

Medoza's web site:

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/mem...6/default.aspx
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-08-2011, 02:32 PM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoller View Post
What is this bill supposed to address? What motivates it? Any particular incidents?
I was able to obtain this from Mendoza's office at the capitol this afternoon. The PDF is attached at the bottom too

Quote:
AS 123 (Mendoza)
School Safety
Summary
AB 123 would add language to Penal Code 626.8
addressing disruptive messages where the disruption
threatens the physical safety of school children in
preschool, elementary school, or middle school while
they are coming to, leaving or attending school.
Background
On March 24, 2003, at approximately 7:30 a.m., two
vehicles driven by two members of the group Center
for Bio-Ethical Reform, drove around the perimeter of
a middle school as students were walking and being
dropped off for classes. The two vehicles consisted of
a truck displaying billboard-sized graphic photographs
of aborted fetuses and an escort "security vehicle"
equipped with a security cage, red and amber
flashing lights, push bars and antennae mounted on
the roof.
Between 7:15 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., all 1,900 students
of the school arrived on campus in the same location;
the cui de sac where the two vehicles were driving.
Because of the disiurbing nature of the photographs,
some students became angry, some began to cry,
and others stared while standing in the street and on
the sidewalk, creating a traffic safety hazard. School
officials contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department. Deputy Sheriff's officers arrived,
detained the two drivers of the vehicles and
eventually determined that California Penal Code
section 626.8 was in violation and asked the drivers
to leave the area around the school.
The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform filed a lawsuit
contending school officials and the sheriffs officers
violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Sheriff's Dept. and Los Angeles Unified School
District (defendants), at which point the Center for
Bio-Ethical Reform (Plaintiffs) appealed. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that Penal Code section
626.8 does not, as written, permit school
administrators to contact local law enforcement in the
event that a person or entity conveys disruptive
messages on an adjacent street where the disruption
threatens the physical safety of children where they
are coming to, leaving from, or attending school.
However, in that opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals acknowledged that should the California
Legislature choose to adopt statutory language to
address this situation, the outcome may be different.
Why AB 123 Is Needed
California schools have the constitutional obligation to
provide safe campuses to students and employees.
The right to free expression is also protected by the
State and Federal Constitutions. However, the right to
free expression is not absolute, and has been limited
within the school context by reasonable time, manner
and place regulations to ensure safety and to
minimize disruption to educational operations.
If school administrators are unable to rely on Penal
Code section 626.8 to address disruptions of schools
that may result in physical harm to students, schools
will lose an important tool in ensuring safe campuses.
This change will help school administrators ensure
student safety without unduly burdening the right of
free expression.
Support
Los Angeles Unified School District LAUSD (Sponsor)
AFSCME
Ocean View School District
County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept
Opposition
None on file.
For More Information
Gabby Villanueva
gabriela. villanueva@asm.ca.gov
(916) 319-2919
Office of Assemblymember Tony Mendoza AS 123 Fact Sheet Page 1
Attached Files
File Type: pdf AB 123 Mendoza school bill.pdf (723.8 KB, 259 views)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-09-2011, 04:24 AM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

Federal court upholds abortion foes' 1st Amendment rights

Ruling affirms activists' right to display photos of aborted fetuses near a middle school.

July 03, 2008

Victoria Kim

The 1st Amendment rights of two anti-abortion activists were violated when they were ordered to stop circling a Rancho Palos Verdes middle school in a truck displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses, a federal appellate court ruled Wednesday.

Overturning an earlier district court judgment, a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled that school officials and sheriff's deputies violated the men's free speech rights by ordering them to leave the school's neighborhood.

The court in its ruling on a lawsuit brought by the activists cited the concept of a "heckler's veto," which states that free speech cannot be limited based on listeners' reactions to the content.

The activists' "speech was permitted until the students and drivers around the school reacted to it, at which point the speech was deemed disruptive and ordered stopped," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote in the ruling. "This application of the statute raises serious 1st Amendment concerns."

The 7-by-20-foot truck with photos of first-term fetuses on three sides appeared near Dodson Middle School around 7:30 a.m. March 24, 2003, as students arrived. Several stopped to stare at the photos, which showed fetuses with small hands and feet and the word "choice" in quotation marks and big block letters, according to court documents.

Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw several children who appeared to be angered by the images and that he had to discourage a group of boys from throwing rocks at the truck.

Roberts called deputies, who stopped and searched the truck and another vehicle, then ordered the activists to leave the area, according to court documents.

"It's the off-putting speech that needs protection, otherwise there is no need for the 1st Amendment," said Robert Muise, a lawyer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, who filed the suit against Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and school officials.

The three-judge panel also ruled that the individual deputies and school officials could not be held liable for the 1st Amendment violations, though the panel found that the deputies wrongly detained the activists for 75 minutes.

"A reasonable officer in the deputies' situation could believe that their actions were lawful," said Jennifer Lehman, a lawyer in the county counsel's office.

The suit is one of several 1st Amendment battles the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is fighting around the country in its reproductive choice campaign, in which trucks and planes carry graphic images of aborted fetuses to expose the public to what its members call "the reality of abortion."

Gregg Cunningham, the center's executive director, said in a deposition that he has seen students faint, become physically ill, weep, avert their gazes and leave the room in response to photos his group uses in the campaign, according to court papers. "There are some realities which can not be adequately communicated with words alone," he said. "Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion."

Mary-Jane Wagle, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, said her group was concerned that young children may be exposed to graphic and jarring images without proper discussion in school or at home.

"Certainly we know they will be horrified, but will they understand what they see? We don't know," Wagle said. "We really believe that what's important is for families to talk about these issues at home, in a safe place."

School representatives could not be reached for comment.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul...me-abortion3/2
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-09-2011, 04:51 AM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

I visited the bio ethical website, it does indeed display disturbing images.

It would be easy to to get caught up in justification for 123. For example,

Quote:
"There are some realities which can not be adequately communicated with words alone," he said. "Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion."
By that reasoning, "children who are old enough to have sex are old enough to view porn".



However, how did a lone incident in 2003 by a knucklehead fringe group (I am reminded of the eco-terrorist group ELF) become justification for something as broadly written as 123?

It certainly disturbed some children, but how did the actions of the group on that day threaten immediate physical harm to children? In fact, it may have been the other way around:

Quote:
Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw several children who appeared to be angered by the images and that he had to discourage a group of boys from throwing rocks at the truck.
So, if - in the interest of equal representation and diversity as well as accuracy in education - there were a mobile billboard set up across the street from a school protesting a large mural purporting to depict a visual history of California painted on the gymnasium wall which only shows people who have a central Mexican physical appearance, and some kids threw rocks at it, would that be considered as threatening the safety of children and prohibited under proposed bill 123?
__________________
Freibier gab's gestern

Hay burros en el maiz

RAP IS TO MUSIC WHAT ETCH-A-SKETCH IS TO ART

Don't drink and post.

"A nickel will get you on the subway, but garlic will get you a seat." - Old New York Yiddish Saying

"You can observe a lot just by watching." Yogi Berra

Old journeyman commenting on young apprentices - "Think about it, these are their old days"

SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Never, ever, wear a bright colored shirt to a stand up comedy show.


Last edited by ilbegone; 03-09-2011 at 05:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-09-2011, 06:41 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,047
Default

Quote:
The three-judge panel also ruled that the individual deputies and school officials could not be held liable for the 1st Amendment violations, though the panel found that the deputies wrongly detained the activists for 75 minutes.

"A reasonable officer in the deputies' situation could believe that their actions were lawful," said Jennifer Lehman, a lawyer in the county counsel's office.
This is one of the byproducts that concerns me. The court cited a heckler's veto of free speech. A 75 minute detainment is a government veto of your 4th amendment rights when you consider that many 1st amendment activities are only 1 or two hours. Think about how many of SOS's past events were planned for that time span, and if the police hold you up for half of that because the law as stated seems violated, your 1st amendment has successfully been infringed, and the court is saying there's no foul.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState 2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved