ACLU sues Jackson-Reed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the suit will go nowhere. Students' freedom of speech on school grounds is not absolute; the student group in question did not follow the process laid out for all student groups and the film they wanted to show likely met the threshold where the school had a legitimate reason for concern that it could cause "substantial and material disruption" to the learning process.

https://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/student-speech-expression-rights-factsheet.pdf

It will be easy for them to show viewpoint discrimination. DC has a long and proud history of losing to the ACLU

Did another student group put up signs for a documentary without getting approval and get to move forward with the event? If so, the school is in trouble. If not, I'm guessing it's going to be hard for this group to make its case. The group is pretty active at J-R, has a lot of support from the school's faculty, publishes a ton of articles in the school paper, etc.

NP and my guess is yes other groups put up signs for meetings and things all the time without following the ‘proper procedures’. From what I heard teachers and clubs do it all the time- the only one to get in trouble was this club advertising the showing of the documentary. I actually think that will be really easy to prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing the suit will go nowhere. Students' freedom of speech on school grounds is not absolute; the student group in question did not follow the process laid out for all student groups and the film they wanted to show likely met the threshold where the school had a legitimate reason for concern that it could cause "substantial and material disruption" to the learning process.

https://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/student-speech-expression-rights-factsheet.pdf

It will be easy for them to show viewpoint discrimination. DC has a long and proud history of losing to the ACLU

Did another student group put up signs for a documentary without getting approval and get to move forward with the event? If so, the school is in trouble. If not, I'm guessing it's going to be hard for this group to make its case. The group is pretty active at J-R, has a lot of support from the school's faculty, publishes a ton of articles in the school paper, etc.

NP and my guess is yes other groups put up signs for meetings and things all the time without following the ‘proper procedures’. From what I heard teachers and clubs do it all the time- the only one to get in trouble was this club advertising the showing of the documentary. I actually think that will be really easy to prove.

As do I. It has been rather egregious.

[Anonymous]

The students will also have to prove that the administration could not reasonably expect that showing the film could result in disruption to the learning environment....given what is going on on campuses, that will be a heavy lift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The students will also have to prove that the administration could not reasonably expect that showing the film could result in disruption to the learning environment....given what is going on on campuses, that will be a heavy lift.

How would what's currently happening on campuses be relevant to a decision from months ago? It could be relevant for future decisions, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students will also have to prove that the administration could not reasonably expect that showing the film could result in disruption to the learning environment....given what is going on on campuses, that will be a heavy lift.

How would what's currently happening on campuses be relevant to a decision from months ago? It could be relevant for future decisions, sure.

dp: Moreover, the protests in campus are in part a reaction to efforts to suppress views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students will also have to prove that the administration could not reasonably expect that showing the film could result in disruption to the learning environment....given what is going on on campuses, that will be a heavy lift.

How would what's currently happening on campuses be relevant to a decision from months ago? It could be relevant for future decisions, sure.

dp: Moreover, the protests in campus are in part a reaction to efforts to suppress views.

on campuses, not "in campus"

[Anonymous]

It is relevant because it demonstrates that this topic is a tinderbox. It is not unreasonable for a high school to be careful about what materials are distributed on its grounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is relevant because it demonstrates that this topic is a tinderbox. It is not unreasonable for a high school to be careful about what materials are distributed on its grounds.

I am one of the PPs and the issue is that they only material the material the principal checked was this event. If those rules and procedures were carefully followed in every instance that would be fine. This is the only time this type of material was denied and it was in the grounds that proper procedure wasn’t followed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is relevant because it demonstrates that this topic is a tinderbox. It is not unreasonable for a high school to be careful about what materials are distributed on its grounds.

I am one of the PPs and the issue is that they only material the material the principal checked was this event. If those rules and procedures were carefully followed in every instance that would be fine. This is the only time this type of material was denied and it was in the grounds that proper procedure wasn’t followed.

If the students can prove everything you are saying they have a case. But the burden of proof will be on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is relevant because it demonstrates that this topic is a tinderbox. It is not unreasonable for a high school to be careful about what materials are distributed on its grounds.

I am one of the PPs and the issue is that they only material the material the principal checked was this event. If those rules and procedures were carefully followed in every instance that would be fine. This is the only time this type of material was denied and it was in the grounds that proper procedure wasn’t followed.

I’m not sure that’s true. The other clubs are not politically controversial. And as much as I thought it was absurd, the decision to paus Maus upholds that the school was equally cautious. My guess is that it will come out that an outside group was pushing to screen the film and it wasn’t reallt student group at all. Or that the student group refused to cooperate with reasonable requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that the students didn’t follow the proper procedures to get the film approved- they just put fliers up so that’s why the event was canceled.

It’s also my understanding that student clubs cannot do whatever they want- for example, a student couldn’t start a J-R White Supremecist Club. There are limits to free speech if students when it in a school-affiliated group.

There are no proper procedures for posting flyers, having meetings, watching films. JR is a huge sprawling school and the clubs mostly function at the discretion of their club sponsor. Yes, there are obvious things not to do but...really no rules. And it is part of what makes the school great. Everyone gets to do their thing there. Heck, kids walk in reeking of pot and no one does anything about it. Now that ones annoys me.

The burden of proof will be on the student group to show that they were singled out for not being allowed to do something that other groups were allowed to do...in this case, that they were not allowed to hold a specific type of event without following the specific process for doing so....and, given what we have seen on college campuses over the past few weeks, they will also have to show that the school could not have had any reasonable expectation that holding the event and showing that film would cause disruption to the learning environment. Again, I think it's an uphill battle for the student group.

You're half right. They will have to show that they were prohibited from doing something that other student groups were alloed to do. The burden for showing disruption will be on JR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is relevant because it demonstrates that this topic is a tinderbox. It is not unreasonable for a high school to be careful about what materials are distributed on its grounds.

I am one of the PPs and the issue is that they only material the material the principal checked was this event. If those rules and procedures were carefully followed in every instance that would be fine. This is the only time this type of material was denied and it was in the grounds that proper procedure wasn’t followed.

I’m not sure that’s true. The other clubs are not politically controversial. And as much as I thought it was absurd, the decision to paus Maus upholds that the school was equally cautious. My guess is that it will come out that an outside group was pushing to screen the film and it wasn’t reallt student group at all. Or that the student group refused to cooperate with reasonable requirements.

It may be an outside group, but my guess is that discovery will show JR's decision was arbitrary and that the plaintiff's lawyers will be able to find plenty of controversial films screened by student groups that were never formally authorized

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that the students didn’t follow the proper procedures to get the film approved- they just put fliers up so that’s why the event was canceled.

It’s also my understanding that student clubs cannot do whatever they want- for example, a student couldn’t start a J-R White Supremecist Club. There are limits to free speech if students when it in a school-affiliated group.

There are no proper procedures for posting flyers, having meetings, watching films. JR is a huge sprawling school and the clubs mostly function at the discretion of their club sponsor. Yes, there are obvious things not to do but...really no rules. And it is part of what makes the school great. Everyone gets to do their thing there. Heck, kids walk in reeking of pot and no one does anything about it. Now that ones annoys me.

The burden of proof will be on the student group to show that they were singled out for not being allowed to do something that other groups were allowed to do...in this case, that they were not allowed to hold a specific type of event without following the specific process for doing so....and, given what we have seen on college campuses over the past few weeks, they will also have to show that the school could not have had any reasonable expectation that holding the event and showing that film would cause disruption to the learning environment. Again, I think it's an uphill battle for the student group.

You're half right. They will have to show that they were prohibited from doing something that other student groups were alloed to do. The burden for showing disruption will be on JR.

Was anothet group allowed to screen a flashpoint documentary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be highly inappropriate to distribute hateful or religious information. The school is right. How can the ACLU support that?

I mean, the ACLU helped the KKK win the right to march. That's what they do.

https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/4156_ri_1978.pdf

That's what the ACLU was years ago. It has abandoned its strong defense of free speech and now advocates for speech it likes and policing speech it does not like. About 20 years ago key leaders split off from the ACLU to create the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) which is an awesome organization akin to what the ACLU once was.

https://www.thefire.org

FIRE backed the students weeks before the ACLU.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-adc-second-letter-jackson-reed-high-school-march-22-2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is relevant because it demonstrates that this topic is a tinderbox. It is not unreasonable for a high school to be careful about what materials are distributed on its grounds.

I am one of the PPs and the issue is that they only material the material the principal checked was this event. If those rules and procedures were carefully followed in every instance that would be fine. This is the only time this type of material was denied and it was in the grounds that proper procedure wasn’t followed.

I’m not sure that’s true. The other clubs are not politically controversial. And as much as I thought it was absurd, the decision to paus Maus upholds that the school was equally cautious. My guess is that it will come out that an outside group was pushing to screen the film and it wasn’t reallt student group at all. Or that the student group refused to cooperate with reasonable requirements.

Exactly- actually, I'm not really sure how Maus and Night are "controversial", except to holocaust deniers. But they are extremely sensitive and the school was very cautious about how/when to teach them. And, to my knowledge, no student group has ever shown a controversial film (i.e., that one side calls a documentary and the other side considers to be propaganda).