Two student editors of the East High School newspaper recent

[Zombiewire]

Sharayah Brooks (left) and James MacIndoe resigned their positions as editors of the East High School newspaper, The Eagle's Cry, earlier this week saying that Principal Alan Nelms invoked prior restraint when he banned the publication of a December issue of the paper.
East High High school editors charge censorship, resign
By GAYLE PEREZ
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

Two student editors of the East High School newspaper recently resigned for what they say is censorship and violations of prior review by the school principal.

Seniors James MacIndoe and Sharayah Brooks resigned Tuesday because they said Principal Alan Nelms refused to allow the Dec. 16 issue of the already printed Eagles' Cry newspaper be distributed to students.

The editors said Nelms told them early on Dec. 16 that the monthly edition was not going to be circulated because it contained several references to Christmas, including an editorial on the commercialization of the holiday.






My take is: Now what the heck is Principal Alan Nelms thinking? From Park View school to Central there were "stories" about Christmas in the school news papers. There is a reason for children taking off those two weeks in December and that vacation was not based on Buddha nor Mohamed but Christ. What is this world coming to. Are the leaders becoming socialist ?
Oh! if there were a story in there about Mohamed or Buddha it would be cleared to run all year long.
In some schools today inthe States, teachers are having their students dress up like Muslims and have that study in class
. People get back your country and stop being politically correct. This country was not build on politically correctness. Moreover it was built on the base of Christ.

[Lexi]

Rather than resigning, they should have hauled their principal's arse into court. I guess the US Constitution doesn't apply to his school?

[large]

'Nother swinging door . . . Both dealing with the First Amendment . . .

The first section of the First amendment deals with . . . Freedom of Religion and the separation of church and state . . .

The next part deals with Freedom of Speech . . .

A conundrum . . . But wait! Isn't it really hypocritical for the House, Senate, the Supreme Court, AND everybody from the ACLU to honor the Holiday of Christmas by not showing up and working? So I'd hazard a guess that it's kind of a Do as I say, not as I do deal, Hmmmm?

Or did I miss something about that time? Personally, I tend to believe "Political Correctness" is neither correct nor tolerant.

But then that's just me . . .

And oh, by the way . . ***** Zombie, yer sure a right winger ain'tcha, heh, heh (inside joke) . . . My kind of guy. Really I try to be "Middle of the road" but you'll catch me on the right shoulder far more than on the left.

[Lexi]

Contrary to the widely misunderstood opinion, there is NO separation of "church and state" in the US Constitution.

We're dealing with Freedom of The Press here, Freedom to express religious views, and so on.

Schools are NOT federal, they are local, but still must abide by the US Constitution. Schools are not "state run" either, so where the heck would the idea of "church and state" fit in if it WERE in the US Constitution? It wouldn't. Public Schools are a local entity.

People seem to think that certain rights afforded by the US Constitution must be thrown out the window when dealing with what is commonly and mistakenly considered to be "governmental agencies", (such as schools). But, the US Constitution was written to protect the people FROM the Government, not to protect "the Government" from the people or the people's personal beliefs.

Remember, the Government is made up BY the people, OF the people, and FOR the people.

Now, from what I understand, mentioning the word Christmas, the name Christ, or even God is NOT pushing any particular religion on ANYONE. Our MONEY says, "In God We Trust". Our Pledge of Allegience says, "One Nation Under God". So, why can't students mention God or Christ in a newspaper article?

Pagans, Muslims, Humanists and Atheists all enjoy Freedom of The Press in public schools without reprival. So must Christians.

So there's another Constitutional guarantee broken: Freedom from discrimination.

I see good, strong Constitutional and Civil Rights issues here.

I wish I were a practicing attorney right now. I'd take on their case for free and I wouldn't stop until this went all the way to the USSC.

I'd also sue the State of Colorado for refusing to abide by USSC rulings on other issues as well, by the way.

[Lexi]

I am very quickly going to elaborate on part of my last post about separation of Church and State.

That "Congress shall make no law establishing religion..." simply means just that.

To better understand this, let's look at England during the time the US Constitution was written. England, at the time, had established a "national religion", that is, the Church of England. Englanders and all countries under England's rule at the time (and, yes, they fought to keep the Colonies, now the US, under their rule -- now you know who the "redcoats" were...) HAD to participate in worshipping as part of the Church of England.

Just so you know, the Church of England is Anglican, also known as Episcopalian. It was, at the time, a spin-off from the Catholic church, as the King wasn't pleased with the Catholic church's rules.

The US Constitution, in light of this, prohibits the US Government from establishing any particular religion, whether it be it's own (and, that COULD include non-religion in a sense, as Humanism, which is widley practiced in the US, IS a religion...it is also an "anti-religion". Take a look at the Humanist Manifesto and you'll see what I'm talking about.)

GOD, or the MENTION OF GOD, is NOT establishing a particular religion, nor is it telling anyone how to or even whether to worship.

Furthermore, the US Constitution STRICTLY PROHIBITS the very idea of not allowing the freedom for people to worship within their own religions or belief systems. This part of the Constitution has been completely trashed by religious or God-hating people who don't think Christians should have any rights because they (the anti-religious) happened to be offended by the idea. DO they care that Christians are offended by THEIR opposition? Heck no, the anti-religious think the ball belongs only to them.

To not allow use of the name of, title of, word of or any other reference to God is to deny freedom of one's right to self expression, free speech, in the case of the school, freedom of the press, and more. It's discrimination based on religious or spiritual beliefs and this is prohibited by the US Constitution.

For information concerning the myth of the separation of Church and State, and how people through the years have turned things completely around, please click this link: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[FormerEIC]

Hello, everyone. Sharayah Brooks here, former EIC of The Eagles' Cry here in Pueblo. I'm amazed to see what a fireball this issue created; however, I am pleased to see that it hasn't gone unnoticed. I wanted to take it to court, but certain complications got in the way. Unfortunately, now my grade in the class is under debate. Yes: they even took my grade down under retribution (at least, that is my firm belief, one they are unwilling to admit yet they let slip). I would to keep in touch with all of you, and your opinions are highly regarded. In fact, with your consent, I may use some of comments anonymously if necessary (but only by your consent, I'd contact you for persmission). Thank you, those who are in support of us. Our principal does not realize that everyone can see right through his lies. Sadly, that makes him look bad - especially in the eyes of us who knows he claims himself to be a Christian. :o :? lol For those who believe in prayer, please pray for this issue, because it is a lot bigger than it seems. Thanks!

- Sharayah Brooks

[Lexi]

You may certainly use my comments, and you can also use my user name associated with them if you would like. I'll let that be at your own discretion.

I would certainly challenge that grade issue, as well, if you think it has anything to do with this.

If you don't mind my asking, what is it that got in the way of taking the matter to court?

I think you may still persue the matter, there's a 3 year statute of limitations on court lawsuits in the State of Colorado depending on the nature of the suit. An attorney can certainly help you with that one.

Best wishes, and know that there are many who are behind you on this.

[Zombiewire]

You need to share this with you lawyer. Know that we are watching the matter. Until then I would advise you to keep a low down on PUBLIC CHAT> !

I have a Lawyer Link on my page link up with www.zombiewire.com OUT!

[Lexi]

Better yet, check out http://www.findlaw.com . There is not only an excellent free find a lawyer search on there, but you can check out their credentials and everything.

As well, there are legal message boards on there which offer tons of really good legal information, you may find something pertaining to such a case in there somewhere. If not, post something and a lawyer will probably answer it with some good advice. You may find someone willing to take on your case free just because of how outrageous it is.

Also, check out http://www.westlaw.com .

Nothing against Mr. Zombie, he's got an interesting site, but what you need right now are facts concerning how to appropriately and effectively handle this matter rather than a barrage of opinions.

[Zombiewire]

I have a link to FIND LAW on my front page

[Lexi]

Didn't see it when I looked, did you add it recently?

It's my fav legal site.

[large]

I can't remember for absolute, however, I believe the Supremes have previously ruled on High School (and College) Newspapers and their oversight by both their Journalism Teacher and the School principal . . Think the School board was even in on that one . .

And YES, Virginia, as a Student, under supervision and charge by the Teachers, etc . . You are just a Student and you are subordinate to the school's hierarchy. While I may write the word F--k in a publication published by private or corporate management, and if my Editors approve that word in the content . . it'll get published!

BUT, The School "Owns" that little newspaper you were the editor of and Your teacher is the "Department Editor", and if he chooses, the Principal may become the "Editor" . . . while it may seem not to be fair and constitutional . . apparently it is . . . especially if the principal believes that the subject is an improper one. More especially if it criticizes a decision or policy he has made . . .

Choose your battles more carefully, young'un . . . Just another lesson in life . . .

[Lexi]

Large, you're forgetting one important issue:

Public Schools, being regulated by the state and paid for by public taxation and in receipt of federal funding, are subject to the laws of the State as well as the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

If this were a private school that did this, your post would be right on target. But since public schools are being considered as a governmental agency, then they must adhere to the rights afforded under the US Constitution.

Therefore, the "heirarchy" must obey the US Constitution and guarantee the right to freedom of the press and free speech as is provided for under the US Constitution.

In studying USSC rulings considering such matters in the past, I have found that the USSC upholds the right to free press, however puts limits to things like slander, pornography, and anything that would jeopardize national security. I don't happen to have those case notes in front of me right now, though, but the USSC does uphold that there must be an element of responsible journalism, which is why ragbags are always getting sued but never put out of business. They have the right to free press but not to slander.

Mentioning God or Jesus at Christmas doesn't sound like slander, pornography, a breach of national security, or anything else irresponsible to me. That's where I see a good challenge to what the school is doing.

As well, as far as the article being offensive because it's "religious" (I have yet to hear what specific religion it is, though), the types of offenses that are considered as oppositional to the law are offenses that directly threaten an individual or a group of individuals, or seeks to slander them or harrass them. It doesn't look to me like the newspaper story fit that description.

[large]

Goes back to what I said about the Publishing Editor . . He decides what and what will not be printed in the final edition . . HE BE THE BOSS!

IF you don't like the Publishing Editor telling you he doesn't want Christmas Articles in HIS newspaper, you have to go out and start YOUR OWN PAPER! Then you can say anything you like, as many times as you want to say it! And that's what the Constitution, labor laws, and business Ethics says about that . . I think that's how the Supremes ruled also . .

About the First Amendment and the right to a Free and Unabridged Speech . . . In this country, you can say just about anything you wish to, with a few exceptions dictated by common sense. BUT, as a business owner, one has to speak a little more carefully, maintaining a "Middle of the Road" approach, because, unless you're selling KKK Sheets or a very specialty item of some sort, you may piss off a large group of potential customers.

I occasionaly write a letter to the Editors in this paper . . and I always try to make a point, but I also try to keep it "Tongue in Cheek" when I do. Nothing worse than one of those "You'll all die tomorrow if you don't heed this letter!" letters . . . Especially when someone is trying to make the Bible the guidelines for everything we do, especially their own interpretation of it . . . I will seek my religion in my private way, thank you!

Leave 'em laughing . . or at least a chuckle, if you can . . .

[Lexi]

Goes back to what I said about the Publishing Editor . . He decides what and what will not be printed in the final edition . . HE BE THE BOSS!

I would hardly call a Principal a publishing editor, especially this one.

He would do well to get to know some real publishing editors.

Again, he did not protect these student's rights to free press or freedom of religious expression.

They have very good grounds for a legal suit.

[Chuckie]

Large,

Did you read the article in the Chieftain when it was published? At theend of the article they published what the law is regarding student newspapers. Yes, they absolutely have grounds for a lawsuit. Having the $$$ to go through with it is likely another matter.

Here is what the chieftain published:

Rights of free expression for public school students
"No expression contained in a student publication, whether or not such publication is school-sponsored, shall be subject to prior restraint expect for the following types of expression:

Obscene.

Libelous, slanderous or defamatory under state law.

False as to any person who is not a public figure or involved in a matter of public concern.

Creates a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts, violation of lawful school regulations, violates others rights to privacy."

Source: Colorado Student Free Expression Law

About prior restraint:

"No student media, whether non-school sponsored or official, will be reviewed by school administrators prior to distribution. The school assumes no liability for the content of any student publication and urges all student journalists to recognize that with editorial control comes responsibility, including the responsibility to follow professional journalism standards each school year."

Source: Student Press Law Center Guidelines

Seems to me the principal stepped outside his authority.

[large]

Well then, somebody ought to get some bucks up and sue Hell out of him!

Bet there's a long line of contributors just wondering where they can send the money . . .

I very possibly may be mistaken, but what may be a state law under the Colorado State Student Free Expression Law, may be another thing together when Federal Constutionality comes into play. Although I believe The States Rights would prevail, hopefully.

[Lexi]

Large;

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. State laws and State Constitutions are in subjection to the US Constitution. If a state law is against the US Constitution, it's unenforeceable, however someone has to challenge that usually in order to get those who've sworn to uphold the US Constitution to actually do so.

The US Constitution overrules any state laws that would violate it. State laws do not prevail when in the shadow of the US Constitution.

That having been said, there IS funding available to help in such cases and agencies such as ACLU and Rutherford Institute have already taken on such cases in the past, I don't see why they would stop now.

Again, if I were a practicing attorney, I'd take the case in a heartbeat, and I would take it Pro Bono.

By the way, it's not the Principal you sue, it's the School/School District, naming the Principal as one of the respondants in the case.

[large]

Well, personally I think there ought to be a bounty on Lawyers . .

And twice the amount on Tort Lawyers . .

So much for my thoughts on the legality of a School Principal being a School Principal . . we'll just let the aniimals run the Zoo . . is that it?

[Lexi]

I can't help but feel a little insulted at that remark, simply because I had a chance to become a lawyer once and didn't. I'm still very interested in law and government, however.

Not all lawyers are bad. Many of them actually do care enough to fight for what is right, and not only for the highest bidder or those who can afford it.

If you're going to take such a negative attitude towards lawyers, you should take an equally negative outlook of the bench itself, as there are a lot of corrupt judges out there not allowing juries to have the final say that the US Constitution gives them.

But that's another story for another time. Until then, since you like to research, check out the Fully Informed Jury...

And, by the way, the animals ARE running the zoo....in the form of the Principal and the school board itself. Anyone who would seek to deny anyone their rights is worse than an animal, in my book. Just because an idiot is a Principal doesn't mean he's right for the job. It just means he was hired by someone else who may not have been right for THEIR job...

Constitutional rights aren't meant only for the adults who live here, our children are guaranteed them to, and we as adults should be doing more to protect our children's constitutional rights.

[large]

Hey, Judges are just Lawyers with a steady job . . . and they never get too far from thinking like lawyers . . .

Life's Experience speaking here . . .

And I'm sorry if I offended you. I don't want to do that up here . . we're s'posed to be having fun . . .

[Lexi]

having fun....

yeah, good point...lol...I guess I got a little uptight there for a moment. Sorry 'bout that! :lol:

[FormerEIC]

Wow!! lol I didn't know this would create so much passionate debate amongst everyone one. hehe I am glad, however, to see that I am not the only one who feels so strongly about the issue.

large: At first, I was like, "Wow, this person really speaks without knowing what he should," but thanks Chuckie for clarifying the laws. My internet has been messed up, so I haven't been able to reply. (Sorry, everyone.)

As for pursuing the issue further, hmm, I'm in the middle of pondering that. On one hand, I don't want to come up with the energy to sue the principal. Besides, other cases have resolved issues of the same nature (which is why my principal, I hope, is just VERY unaware). On the other hand, it's WRONG, and it should be taken further.

Thank you SO much for all of your support. Thanks for the links. I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't had the time (or internet) to look at them all, but I definitely will as soon as I get the chance. It all seems very interesting. Besides, you never know when I might encounter something like this again. :O lol

I'll reply again as soon as I can.

sharayah

P.S. And yes, it is shocking at how much power we have, huh, large? lol I was shocked myself (being that is IS state-funded)!

[large]

Our individual powers of freedom are what and how we use them. The fact that there is the right to say what you wish, doesn't necessarily enable you to use that right without a pinch of wisdom. As I said, one wants to choose their battles carefully. When we are youthful and full of vinegar and all that stuff, we spend a lot of energy fighting the "Good Fight". And we "fight Thunderstorms and charge into Trees!*" . . without thinking that this may be one that good sense and discretion should dictate that we avoid. Or approach from another angle . . .

And while you may have had the right to print it, now you are no longer in place to do that . . . And while you're right, and you may sue to have that right still, the school and the principal have replaced you with another who will maintain a lower profile. See what I mean?

While there may be a State law saying you may do as you will, the process to maintain that right outweighs the ends . . . and it becomes a moot point . . . Legally, the constitution allows many things that local ordinances outlaw . . and you may press that in court, clear to the Supremes . . probably win, eventually . . . But the local fine of $50 or whatever would've been cheaper!

A wise man who ran a Contracting Company once told me, after I asked him why he allowed a large Corporation to only pay him the costs and refused to pay the Overhead and Profit for the Job, telling him to "Sue them, that's what they had Lawyers for!" and he replied, "There are times when Principles cost far more than you stand to gain!"

I have never forgotten that.

*from the song, "The Winner", Bobby Bare, 1976

[Lexi]

Sharayah,

I know well the dilemma you face: On one hand, you just want to be able to let it rest so you can get on with your life, but on the other, you don't want to give this person any more power to turn around and pull this stunt again on someone else.

I take a different perspective than Large, he's got some good points, but in truth, if you don't act on your rights and stand up for them, then you don't have them. Common Law dictates such things, believe it or not, by setting precedences. If enough people don't stand up for a particular right, then the powers that be figure it's not an important enough one to enforce. In your case, if students figure that the adults can just get away with being stupid, then the powers that be will not enforce student's rights.

Unlike Large, I don't believe that just because an adult is running the show, it's no proof that the adult in question is competant enough to do so appropriately. Yes, the adult may be the authority figure and all, but a good authority figure will not trample on your rights, especially to suit his own private agenda. A good authority figure will lead you, not force you to do what he thinks is best. Good leaders allow their "followers" to make their own decisions and use their own minds. If something is illegal, yes, a good leader would put a stop to it.

But, from what I can tell, your article was not illegal.

So the choice is yours on what you decide to do about this. Whatever you decide, you have the rest of us supporting you either way. And, know, too, that if it happens again, the community as a whole might decide figure out whether the school board should allow such a principal to remain employed in the first place. After all, it wouldn't be the first time that the community has come together concerning someone working within the local educational system.

Should you decide to pursue the matter, consider a public fund raising...I'll bet there are many of us who would donate funds towards it.

[FormerEIC]

Well, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to side w/ Lexi on this one. Thanks for all the "advice for youth", but I think I'm rather wise for my age. I know to choose my battles carefully. As of now, I don't see what could come out of a legal battle. If the EIC lets the principal do it again (which I believe is happening), then that is his/her (won't give name) problem. I, in particular, no longer care. lol *shrug* Oh well. But thanks for all the advice, I will look through the links just for future knowledge, however, so thanks bunches! :) It was fun while it lasted. haha

[Chuckie]

Just somthing to think about. This was a quote from WWII.

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. – Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)


Martin Niemoeller was a hero. In World War I he commanded a submarine and received Germany's highest award for valor. Then he was ordained a Protestant minister and at first tolerated the Nazis because of their anti-Communist stance. But when he realized how evil Hitler was, he became an active anti-Nazi and was sent to a concentration camp, which he barely survived

Our 1st Ammendment rights are a precious gift from our forefathers. You have a lot of people willing to back you on this becuase if we take those things for granted and don't stand up to defend them they get whittled away. Pretty soon those rights are gone and there is no one left to stand up for them.

By the way, the rest of the article I borrowed that from can be found here. It's worth the read.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/9/31958.shtml

[large]

My question is this: What have we learned from this whole exercise?

One; We will offer to advise someone on their Rights and the fact that one should stand up for them. BUT, we will not actively go fight the battle, even though we think someone has been wronged.

Two: And this one is the one I feel is Important. The party who was "deprived of her Rights" in the end said, and I quote; "As of now, I don't see what could come out of a legal battle. If the EIC lets the principal do it again (which I believe is happening), then that is his/her (won't give name) problem. I, in particular, no longer care. lol *shrug* Oh well."

In other words, she really doesn't give a Rat's Ass! It would be too much trouble to fight it.

Discretion is the better part of Valor. Choose the battles you can win. This little girl chose a battle, lost the first skirmish and wasn't even around for the "War". For that, I'm sorry. For the advice I passed on, I'm not.

[Chuckie]

agreed. many of us would love to help her fight this war. However, we can't fight it FOR her. She has to lead it so we can join. :? If she is unwilling to do that then we all lose and can do nothing about it.

[Chuckie]

agreed. many of us would love to help her fight this war. However, we can't fight it FOR her. She has to lead it so we can join. :? If she is unwilling to do that then we all lose and can do nothing about it.

[Lexi]

In other words, she really doesn't give a Rat's Ass! It would be too much trouble to fight it.

I'm sorry, Large, but I have to disagree with you here, and I'm going to give you a little admonishment:

You spent so much time poo-pooing this issue with her, now you turn around and make this rather nasty and unwarranted remark above. Truly, this was not called for.

Don't sit there and be so discouraging to someone then turn around and tell the discouraged person they don't give a rat's **** she obviously does. It may just be that she's wise enough to realize whether she is about to take on a losing battle. There's a big difference, believe me, and that insult was truly uncalled for. I think you owe the girl an apology.

Your remark about discretion being the better part of valor is right on target, though, and here's why:

There are times when the recipient of a wrongdoing just wants to be able to live in peace. I know, very well, what this is like, as I've walked in such shoes myself, only on a larger scale. Sometimes it's best just to leave things in God's hands knowing that He will deal with the person who is handing out the guff rather than battle it out in a courtroom.

Let me give you a fine example of this:

Several years ago in Colorado Springs a certain Christian radio station hit the airwaves. The Springs station hit the airwaves on the same frequency as a similar station that is located in Denver. Of course, we all know that this is illegal.

The Denver station, who's genre was pretty much the same, sent a letter to the Springs station informing them of this error and asked them to please consider their options. The Springs station, from my understanding, pretty much refused, they wanted to stay where they were.

The Denver station turned around and conceded, knowing that they were being wronged, they had a terrific case that they know they'd have won hands down. But they decided not to fight, they left it in the hands of The Lord, and turned around and, rather than fighting, gave up that air space to their opponent.

This has allowed The Lord to use not only them, but the Springs station as well to minister to people. I enjoy listening to this station, and I appreciate the move on the Denver station's part to "let go and let God". Because of their generosity and their faith, they opened doors that has allowed God to bless many thru this other station, and peace came about. It's my understanding that the two stations are on good terms with each other.

That move of peace and understanding was something many can learn from. Did the radio station in Denver just not give a rat's ass? No. Instead, they used discretion and rather than fighting they used peace and forgiveness as a means to settle the wrongdoing. They did more than turn the other cheek, they went the extra mile.

Granted, many people who don't believe in God will take issue with this. But my point is, that good won over bad, and it doesn't always take a courtroom to make that happen.

Perhaps Sharayah knows this in her heart somehow and is willing to give rather than to fight.

Is this not something that you, Large, in the first place, were trying to encourage of her, albeit negatively, when you made remarks about the animals running the zoo, and telling about how the principal is in charge?

I don't understand how, then, when she mentions her concession that you can turn around and insult her with that remark you made.

I think that Sharayah is doing the right thing. She knows that she has a good court case, but she also knows that there is One who sees more than we do, and either way, His blessings are upon her.

[FormerEIC]

Alrighty, here is the thing: what would come out of this legal battle? Money? Yay. Whoopee. Who gives a "Rat's Ass" about money! That will not change my principal's thoughts...and if so, bravo: I've sunk to the level of all the other "sue-happy" people. We have brought up names of prosecutors and whatnot, and we know he will still attempt to do what he is doing now. Is it worth a shot? Perhaps. Some people could care less about legal situations and will still continue their behind-closed-doors procedures. As of right now, I am actually more concerned with the journalists: I'm wanting them to learn that what he did was wrong and that they need to stand up for their rights. The journalism program is already hurting, and other high schools have been calling me and my co-editor for info. Now, I do not appreciate large's little demeanoring comments. Here's a lesson: respect all ages, because you never know when someone of younger age may be wiser than thyself.

Once again though, thanks for all the support. :)

Also, things may still arise and surface the issue once again. You never know...

[FormerEIC]

Thank you so much for all your comments!! They have been very encouraging and uplifting! You have pretty much nailed everything right on the head (which is rather odd, considering I don't know you). lol Heaps of thanks! :D

[Lexi]

Sharayah,

I am impressed with your intelligence, and I know you will go far with it.

God's blessings be upon you now and always.

[FormerEIC]

THANKS!! :D

[Lexi]

You are quite welcome!

[large]

All of you up here might want to read Chuck Green's piece that was written in the Editorial page of the Chieftain this AM, concerning Professor Ward Churchill's recent Pecadellos.

Prof. Churchill said what he thought, and the Constitution gives him that right. However, it apparently hasn't been taken well by the masses, and now he faces losing his position, and other perks he has gotten used to as a Tenured Professor.

Of course, he may seek legal redress, but his essay that created the problem in the first place won't be taken well by anyone but the most liberal Judge or jury and with the foreseen changes in Tort law, he may not recieve much after a 2-3 year unpaid absence. Again, principles can be very expensive.

Just another example of using a little wisdom when exercising your constitutional rights . . .

[Lexi]

Yes, well, the difference between Prof. Churchill and Sharayah is that Churchill spread hatred and sympathy to terrorists and their cause, Sharayah did not.

BIG difference there, Large. BIG BIG difference.

Granted, the concept of freedom of speech is there, but the content of their topics were so different that truly, there is no comparison.

Now, don't get me wrong here, Large, I like you lots, but I think you were way out in left field on this one, and attempting to compare the two cases puts you out further.

I have a great idea, though...why not start a separate topic about Churchill and the hatred and ignorance that he's full of? Of course, my only thought about him is that he's an idiot, and I have no further time to waste on the subject because of that, but I'm sure there are plenty who have much to say about it. What say ye?

[large]

Uh uh, Lexi, Wade Churchill had as much right to say what he said as any other American. And he has the right to believe what he wrote.

It's just that one, you agree with, one, you don't . . Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

I argue that although we all have a right to freedom of thought and as well, then, Speech, one must reserve that right at times.

There's an old chinese saying . . "Be careful when you kick a Tiger in the **** You may have to deal with his Teeth!" I'm just counseling youth to choose their battles carefully so that they may live long and enjoy winning a few! You'll never win 'em all, no matter how right you may be!

And it's really hard to earn a living when you're in court all day . . Unless you're a Lawyer!

[Lexi]

Large....

Go back and re-read my post. Nowhere did I indicate that Churchill did NOT have a right to his opinion. I merely stated that to compare what he wrote to what Sharayah wanted to publish was, basically, absurd.

Why is it that you obviously stand for this man's right to publish his opinion but you are opposed to Sharayah's publishing hers? Is it because Churchill is an adult and Sharayah is a student? Have you something against kids? Or, do you feel that all children should always bow to the "authority" of the adults?

The topics were so different, Large, that you can't even really compare the two other than to note that one was full of hatred and one was acknowledging Jesus on what we celebrate as his own birthday...

Would you like for folks not to mention YOU concerning celebrating YOUR birthday? (And, who cares what day is chosen to celebrate it? The fact is, that's when we celebrate it. So why NOT mention Him?)

That's a huge difference from sympathising with terrorists...

[large]

Actually it has little to do with the topic, and everything to do with the Basic Constutional Right . . . I maintain, you may say anything you wish to, it is your right (with certain reservations) . . but should you?

There's a time and place to just place your tongue firmly in your cheek, and say precisely nothing. No matter how strongly you feel. And if you speak out, get stomped on, then either finish the fight . . . or shut up! No use whining about the injustices of the system, it becomes pointless. And that's pretty much how this particular subject washed out. The original party who was injustly treated, in the end just walked away, probably a little wiser, I hope, but understanding that it's really hard to wrestle with a Gorilla unless you can get just as rough as the Gorilla does.

That's a lot of the problems with the courts currently, the average American is probably wronged at least 5 times a day, and some sue at every other one. The courts are full of people who, in the eyes of common sense, should've turned the other cheek. Of course, it isn't fair. but no one said it would be!

[Lexi]

Actually it has little to do with the topic, and everything to do with the Basic Constutional Right

Hello?! I'm the one here who's been standing up for those Constitutional rights, remember? It's YOU who seems to feel that students have no right to freedom of the press. Yet you also seem to feel that Churchill DOES have such a right.

I feel that students DO have a right to freedom of the press, as does Churchill. So what's your problem?

There's a time and place to just place your tongue firmly in your cheek, and say precisely nothing. No matter how strongly you feel. And if you speak out, get stomped on, then either finish the fight . . . or shut up!

Are you speaking for yourself, by chance?

No use whining about the injustices of the system, it becomes pointless.

Just WHOM are you accusing of whining?

Why don't you choose the stand you're going to make on the subject and stick with it? First you chastise the girl for taking a stand, then you insult her her for deciding not to fight. What's with you? You need to make up your own mind about what your opinion is before you express it. Going back and forth on the issue as you have certainly gives us a conflicting view of what you're trying to say.

Again, I fail to see your point concerning why you're bringing Churchill into the matter. No one (on here, from what I've seen) has denied his right to freedom of speech or the press. So what's your point, then?

[FormerEIC]

Wow, large, I seriously have no words for your opinions. lol I truly do respect your right to have them, but I also believe you should know what you're talking before you speak them. As of right now, it seems like like the hole you're digging yourself is a little too "large" to climb out. Maybe now is a wise time to exercise your favourite tongue-in-cheek philosophy. :)

[large]

My primary point was this: The School District and the Principal held the best hand. Your position was tenable, however, the cost of proving right was just like the anology of the Gorilla. The first advice was to back off, let your blood pressure go down and find an avenue to keep your job and also retain some creditability.

The subject was argued to death with a number of wannabe lawyers and judges. No offense meant to anybody up here, but as I continued to say, in the secondary, if you are going to do something . . Do it! Don't piss and moan about what might have been.

And if you have no intent to do anything about the subject you're railing against, then drop it. Spend your energies being happy, doing something else that will help mankind . . . everytime you drag something through the mud, it just gets heavier!

[Lexi]

Large,

Let's get on the same page here:

First of all, I haven't seen Sharayah "pissing and moaning" about anything.

Second, she wasn't the one who brought up the topic. If you'll go back and look, the one who started this topic in the first place was Zombie.

As for the rest of your undeserved insulance in the rest of your posts, I am fast losing that good impression I once had of you...
:roll:

[FormerEIC]

Spend your energies being happy, doing something else that will help mankind . . . everytime you drag something through the mud, it just gets heavier!

Then, large, why are you wasting your "energy" arguing with me? Your opinions are your opinions, and my opinions are my opinions.

Thanks for sharing yours though.

[large]

Thanks, Pardon me if I got huffy . . You're OK . . . you'll do fine . . .